The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022/07/20 - Regular Meeting CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L. Dor ennis Michael REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Mayor Pro Tern July 20, 2022 rr. r r Lynne B. Kennedy r r 10500 Civic Center Drive rr(C- counbels of the City Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 tapir, Ryan A. Hutchison Kristine D. Scott FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD—CITY COUNCIL HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY-SUCCESSOR AGENCY—PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY CLOSED SESSION TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM 4:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETINGS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. pf 'P!p The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the rr }. -1,•r . Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. It Is the Intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 0'`+t ,: p.m. unless extended by the concurrence of the City Council. Agendas, minutes, and recordings of 01 °4 meetings can be found at www.cityofrc.us or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 909-774-2023. Live SCAN ME Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV-3). CLOSED SESSION — 4:30 P.M. TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy Council Members Hutchison and Scott A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION Dl. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR AND JENIFER PHILLIPS, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. — (CITY) CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 1 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." D2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT AND LOUISA OLLAGUE V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. CIVRS 1603632. (CITY) D3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH(1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: PEPE'S INC. V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP— (CITY) D4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8408 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA EPICENTER STADIUM); AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: JOHN GILLISON, JENNIFER HUNT-GRACIA AND WILLIAM WITTKOPF, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; NEGOTIATING PARTY: RANCHO BASEBALL LLC ; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT—(CITY) D5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 020927211, 020914321, AND 020927222 AND CERTAIN ADJACENT RIGHTOFWAY INCLUDED WITHIN THE STATION FOOTPRINT; CITY NEGOTIATOR: JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: SARAH WATERSON, PRESIDENT, REPRESENTING DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC, DBA AS BRIGHTLINE WEST; UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. —(CITY) D6. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND CIVIC CENTER DRIVE IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER 0208-331-40; AND 0208-331-47; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER AND MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; AND CHRIS HYUN, JRC REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CORP REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. (CITY) D7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1 ) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. DR LANDMARK, INC.; POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 5 INCLUSIVE, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVDS 1904713 — (CITY) D8. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9333 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 022916223; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, AND OVERLAND, PACIFIC AND CUTLER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, OWNER; REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. —(CITY) D9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. TOWER OF POWER CORPORATION, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVSB2110388. (CITY) CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 2 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." D10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. CHAO PING YANG, ET AL., SBSC CASE NO.: CIVSB2201957. (CITY) E. RECESS — Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. REGULAR MEETING — 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy Council Members Hutchison and Scott A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA B. ANNOUNCEMENT/ PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to Instructors of the First LISTOS Class Hosted by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. B2. Presentation of a Proclamation Proclaiming the Month of July 2022, as National Park & Recreation Month. B3. Presentation of the 10th Consecutive Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). B4. Presentation of Rancho Cucamonga's Ranking - 2022's Best &Worst Places to Raise a Family. C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 3 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. CONSENT CALENDARS: The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with the City Council consent calendar. D. CONSENT CALENDAR Dl. Consideration of Meeting Minutes for the Regular and Special Meetings of: May 18, 2022, June 2, 2022, and June 16, 2022. D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $3,999,236.38 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of$8,813,974.62 Dated June 06, 2022, Through July 10, 2022 and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for the Month of June in the Total Amount of$7,818,051.85. (CITY/FIRE) D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $27,910.10 Dated June 06, 2022, Through July 10, 2022. (CITY/FIRE) D4. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of June 30, 2022 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) D5. Consideration of Amendment No. 001 to the Professional Services Agreement with Mary McGrath Architects for Conceptual Design Services for the Fire Station 175 Project in the Amount of$58,290 and Authorization to Appropriate $58,290. (FIRE) D6. Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Results of a Special Election in Community Facilities District No. 85-1, Annexation No. 22-2, Located at 8629 Pecan Avenue (APN 0229-151-27). (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022-022) (FIRE) D7. AB 361 Findings for Special Brown Act Requirements for Teleconference. (CITY/FIRE) D8. Consideration To Reject Bids For The "Citywide Concrete Repairs FY 2021/2022 Project" As Non-Responsive To The Needs Of The City. (CITY) CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 4 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." D9. Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of $40,580.00 and Approval to Purchase Equipment in the Amount of $40,580.00 from Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (CITY) D10. Consideration of Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Interwest Consulting Group for Plan Checks and Inspection Services in the Amount of$10,000. (CITY) D11. Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to Contract CO 19-187 with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for Citywide Tree Maintenance Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,377,000. (CITY) D12. Consideration of Amendment No. 05 to the Professional Services Agreement with Magellan Advisors, LLC (C018-103) for Fiber Optic Project Management and Design Services for Fiscal Year 2022/23. (CITY) D13. Consideration of a Multi-Year Agreement with DocuPet Corp. for Pet Licensing Services Not to Exceed $112,500. (CITY) D14. Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for LMD 2 Parkway, Paseo, and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,443,188. (CITY) D15. Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers for the Completion of the Healthy RC Active Transportation Infrastructure Assessment and Improvement Plan in the Amount of$374,966 plus a 5% Contingency, and Authorization of Appropriations from the State Grant (Fund 274) and Citywide Capital Infrastructure (Fund 198) Funds. (CITY) D16. Consideration of Approval of an Improvement Agreement for Design Review DRC2016-00295, for the Construction of a 108-Room Hotel Located on the South Side of Foothill Avenue Approximately 420 Feet West of Masi Drive. (CITY) D17. Consideration of Contracts with Torti Gallas + Associates, Arthur Gensler and Associates, PlaceWorks and Sargent Town Planning for On-Call Urban Design Consulting Services. (CITY) D18. Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with San Bernardino County for the Rehabilitation of the Rancho Cucamonga Family Resource Center. (CITY) D19. Consideration to Accept the LMD-4R Terra Vista — Water Conservation / Landscape Renovation FY 20-21 Project as Complete, File the Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Retention and Bonds. (CITY) D20. Consideration to Accept as Complete, File a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Retention, and Bonds for the Fiscal Year 20/21 Traffic Signal Modification Project (Contract No. 2021-010). (CITY) D21. Consideration of a Resolution by the City Council, as the Code Reviewing Body Pursuant to the California Political Reform Act, Approving the Conflict of Interest Code for the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD Public Financing Authority. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-093)(CITY) CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 5 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." D22. Consideration of Resolutions Approving the Special Tax Levy for Various Community Facilities Districts and the Special Annual Benefit Assessment for Drainage Area No. 91-2 for the Fiscal Year 2022/23. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2022-094 through 2022-109)(CITY) D23. Consideration to Adopt Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Teamsters Local 1932, Including Amending the Salary Schedule for the Fiscal Year 2022-23, and a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer-Paid Member Contributions to CaIPERS. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-110) and (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-111), Respectively. (CITY) D24. Consideration of Resolution of Necessity of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Declaring Certain Real Property Interests Necessary for Public Purposes and Authorizing the Acquisition Thereof in Connection with the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project (Southern California Edison Company, 9333 Etiwanda Avenue in Unincorporated San Bernardino County, San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 0229-291-23). (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112)(CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION El. Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO.1007 A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164 FOR THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTING OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE CIRCULATION NETWORK FOR PLANNING AREA 1 B, INCLUSION OF NEW STREET TYPES FOR PLANNING AREA 1 B, RELOCATION OF LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 B,REFORMATING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT INTO TWO SECTIONS REGULATING PLANNING AREA IA AND PLANNING AREA 1 B RESPECTIVELY,AND MISCELLANEOUS TEXT EDITS FOR THE DELETION OF INAPPLICABLE REFERENCES,DELETION OF INAPPLICABLE EXHIBITS,AND INCLUSION OF NEW EXHIBITS REFLECTIVE OF THE AMENDMENTS LISTED ABOVE;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT GI. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 —WOOD PARTNERS, APPLICANT. The project is a site plan/architectural review for a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non-residential space within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. APNs: 0229-311-14 and -15. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. (RESOLUTION 2022-113)(CITY) G2. Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Adopting the Fire District's General Fund Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23. (RESOLUTION FD 2022-023)(FIRE) CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 6 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." G3. Public Hearing to Consider Resolutions Confirming the Diagrams and Assessments and Ordering the Levy and Collection of Annual Assessments for Landscape Maintenance Districts; Street Lighting Maintenance Districts; and Park and Recreation Improvement District No. PD-85 for Fiscal Year 2022/23. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2022-114, 2022-115, 2022-116)(CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS 11. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) 12. INTERAGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website. LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT Page 7 "Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive." May 18, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a closed session on Wednesday, May 18, 2022, in the Tri- Communities Conference Room at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison (via audio conferencing), Kristine Scott, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services; Elise Cox, Deputy City Manager/Cultural & Civic Services and Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development. A.ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) No public communications were made. C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS None. D.CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION Dl. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (RCCEA) AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. — (CITY) D2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVSB2201969. (CITY) D3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. KULAR TRUCK LINE, INC., SBSC CASE NO.: CIVSB2201968. (CITY) D4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9333 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 022916223; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, AND OVERLAND, PACIFIC AND CUTLER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, OWNER; REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. —(CITY) May 18, 2022 I Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 9 Page 8 D5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D)OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE:CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. BCORE IE WEST OWNER LLC, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVSB2201966. (CITY) D6. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 8920 8TH STREET, RANCHO CUCAMONGA; CITY NEGOTIATOR: JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: JULIAN F. TORKAN, MADISON CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. —(CITY) D7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH(1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: PEPE'S INC. V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP—(CITY) D8. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 020927211, 020914321, AND 020927222 AND CERTAIN ADJACENT RIGHTOFWAY INCLUDED WITHIN THE STATION FOOTPRINT; CITY NEGOTIATOR: JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: SARAH WATERSON, PRESIDENT, REPRESENTING DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC, DBA AS BRIGHTLINE WEST; UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. — (CITY) E. RECESS The closed session recessed at 6:44 p.m. REGULAR MEETING — 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER — COUNCIL CHAMBERS The regular meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council were held on May 18, 2022 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Michael announced Council Member Hutchison will be participating remotely via Zoom. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison (via audio conferencing), Kristine Scott, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney and Linda Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director. Council Member Scott led the Pledge of Allegiance. City Manager Gillison announced that in accordance with AB 361, members of the public have the option to participate in the City Council meeting via teleconference. Those wishing to speak during public communication may call in by dialing (909) 774-2751 and speak during the public communications portion of the meeting. May 18, 2022 I Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 2 of 9 Page 9 A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA None. B. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of a Proclamation in Honor of Professional Municipal Clerk's Week. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council presented a Proclamation to Linda A. Troyan, City Clerks Services Director and City Clerk's Office/Records Management Department staff members recognizing Professional Municipal Clerk's Week. C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS City Attorney Ghirelli announced and reminded the public that the City Council meeting is a professional business meeting and operating under the Brown Act, there are two items that are open for public comment, which includes anything on the agenda and anything within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. He noted that when making public comments please avoid threatening, personal, or abusive language and anyone who disrupts or impedes the meeting will not be tolerated. Frank Atry, spoke about corruption, campaign contributions, his first amendment rights and his speaking time frame at a previous Council meeting. City Attorney Ghirelli noted that Mr. Atry left with time on the clock and no one has stopped him from speaking. Janet Walton, offered a prayer. Terri Ann Kemmling, spoke regarding a neighboring noise concern; and asked for assistance in enforcing the noise Ordinance. City Manager Gillison responded regarding the City's noise Ordinance and referred Ms. Kemmling to Code Enforcement Officer Rios for further assistance. Lee Waite, spoke on pedestrian safety at the Victoria Park Trail and Victoria Park lane; and pedestrian and traffic improvements. City Manager Gillison referred Mr. Waite to Jason Welday, City Engineer, for further information and assistance. Robert Bandholtz, spoke regarding crosswalk installations; and traffic and safety concerns on Hermosa Avenue. City Manager Gillison referred Mr. Bandholtz to City Engineer Welday for further assistance. Mark Porter, spoke on his candidacy for Congressional District 33. D. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Scott announced that she will need to abstain on item D2, due to a potential conflict of interest as her employer is Southern California Gas Company. Dl. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of$1,715,453.39 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers(Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company)in the Total Amount of $2,119,369.51 Dated April 25, 2022 Through May 10, 2022 and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for the Month of April in the Total Amount of$7,290,716.65.(CITY/FIRE) May 18, 2022 I Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 3 of 9 Page 10 D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $20,916.51 Dated April 25, 2022, Through May 10, 2022. (CITY/FIRE) D3. Consideration of Amendment No. 001 to the Professional Services Agreement with Transtech Engineers (CO#19-106) and Amendment No. 002 to the Professional Services Agreement with Aufbau Corporation (CO#19-107)to Increase Annual Compensation for Professional Plan Check Services. (CITY) D4. Consideration to Approve Parcel Map 20271, Improvement Agreement, and Improvement Securities for Street Improvements Located Approximately 1,000 Feet East of Santa Anita Avenue and 2,300 Feet West of Etiwanda Avenue, North of Fourth Street, and South of 6th Street at 12434 4th Street, Related to Case No's. SUBTPM20271 and DRC2020-00202. (CITY) D5. Consideration to Execute a Deed Transferring Property at the Cucamonga Station (APNs 0209-272-11 and 0209-272-22) into Joint Tenancy with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority in Partial Fulfillment of the Terms of Cooperative Agreement No. C093-050. (CITY) D6. Consideration to Receive and File a Report in Conformance with California Government Code Section 65858(D) on Measures Taken to Alleviate the Need for Interim Ordinance No. 998, Adopting an Interim Development Code and Official City Of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning Map, and Declaring The Urgency Thereof, and Approving an Addendum to a Certified Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (CITY) D7. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the Measure "I" Five-Year Capital Project Needs Analysis covering Fiscal Years 2022/2027. (RESOLUTION NO.2022-054)(CITY) MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to approve Consent Calendar Items D1 through D7, with Council Member Scott abstaining on item D2, due to her employment with Southern California Gas Company. Roll Call Vote: Council Member Hutchison: Aye, Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy: Aye, Council Member Scott: Aye, and Mayor Michael: Aye. Motion carried, 4-0. E.CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) - SECOND READING/ADOPTION None. F.ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) None. May 18, 2022 I Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 4 of 9 Page 11 G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) - CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1. Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution for Placement of Special Assessments and Liens for Delinquent Solid Waste Accounts. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-051) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Marissa Ostos, Management Analyst I and Scott Rapp, Environmental Programs Coordinator,who gave the Staff Report. Correspondence was received by Tower of Power, Kavikam, LLC and Andrew Ochoa and was distributed to the City Council. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing item. There were no public communications received. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing item. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-051, for Placement of Special Assessments and Liens for Delinquent Solid Waste Accounts. Roll Call Vote: Council Member Hutchison: Aye, Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy: Aye, Council Member Scott: Aye, and Mayor Michael: Aye. Motion carried, 4-0. G2. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Number 2022-055 and Conduct of First Reading of Ordinance Numbers 1000, 1001, and 1002 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading,to Adopt A Comprehensive Revision to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, A Revised Zoning Map, Repeal the Etiwanda Specific Plan, Etiwanda Highlands Specific Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, Terra Vista Planned Community, Victoria Planned Community, Town Square Master Plan, and Victoria Arbors Master Plan,Amend the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Boundary and Rename to The Resort Specific Plan; and Adopt an Addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). (ORDINANCE NO. 1000, 1001, 1002 AND RESOLUTION 2022-055) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning, who gave the Staff Report. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing item. There were no public communications received. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing item. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Hutchison, seconded by Council Member Scott, to approve staff recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 2022-055 and introduce First Reading of Ordinance Nos. 1000, 1001 and 1002, by title only and waive further reading. Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director, read the title of Ordinance Nos. 1000, 1001, and 1002. VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Council Member Hutchison,seconded by Council Member Scott, to approve staff recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 2022-055 and introduce First Reading of Ordinance Nos. 1000, 1001 and 1002, by title only and waive further reading. Roll Call Vote: Council Member Hutchison:Aye, Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy:Aye, Council Member Scott:Aye, and Mayor Michael: Aye. Motion carried, 4-0. May 18, 2022 I Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 5 of 9 Page 12 G3. Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution to Establish Master Plan DRC2022-00074 at the Northwest Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue-WDCC Milliken West Residential, LLC,Applicant. The Master Plan Will Enable the Construction of a Mixed-Use Development Comprising Of 671 Apartments And 20,841 Square Feet of Commercial Space Within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District, APNs: 1077-422-51, -55, -98, -99, 1090-121-38, and -39. (Related Files: Design Review DRC2021-00120,and Tentative Tract Map 20120(SUBTT00024).A CEQA Section 15183(c)Compliance Memorandum Was Prepared for This Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-049) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Vincent Acuna,Associate Planner,who gave the staff report. Correspondence was received by Lozeau Drury LLP and Monchamp Eldrum LLP and was distributed to the City Council. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing item. Brian Jacobson, Applicant, spoke on the vision and distinct features of the project. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing item. Discussion ensued on having sufficient parking for the project; and the possibility of having new restaurants as part of the project. City Attorney Ghirelli noted that the City received a comment letter on the Master Plan from a law firm representing (SAFER)Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility. He noted that in addition to the Master Plan there is a Parcel Map and Design Review component to this project that was approved by the Planning Commission and that SAFER has since then appealed the Planning Commission's decision to approve those entitlements, and those entitlements on appeal will be returning before the City Council assuming the Council approves the Master Plan. The applicants law firm responded to the letter and is consistent with what was informed to the Planning Commission on the project, in that the project is exactly what the City was looking for when it adopted the General Plan and the EIR for the plan that helps streamline the environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the general plan and for projects that are consistent with the density outlined in the general plan and believes it is correct. There was a significant environmental review process for this project as outlined under Code Section 15183. A technical memorandum was prepared analyzing all the site-specific impacts the were not previously reviewed in the General Plan EIR. The technical memorandum was peer reviewed and found that the CEQA guidelines section applies. City Attorney Ghirelli noted that he reviewed the comment letter by SAFER and sees no substantial evidence of new impacts that have not been previously addressed and recommended moving forward with approval. MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-049, approving Master Plan DRC 2022-00074. Roll Call Vote: Council Member Hutchison: Aye, Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy: Aye, Council Member Scott: Aye, and Mayor Michael: Aye. Motion carried, 4- 0. G4. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of a Resolution Making Determinations Regarding the Proposed Annexation of Territory (Annexation No. 22-1) Located at 7878 East Avenue into an Existing Community Facilities District, Calling a Special Election, and Authorizing Submittal of Levy of Special Taxes to the Qualified Electors. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022-010) (FIRE) City Manager Gillison introduced Noah Daniels, who gave the staff report. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing item. There were no public communications received. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing item. May 18, 2022 I Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 6 of 9 Page 13 MOTION: Moved by Board Member Scott, seconded by Board Member Hutchison, to adopt Resolution No. FD 2022-010. Roll Call Vote: Council Member Hutchison: Aye, Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy: Aye, Council Member Scott: Aye, and Mayor Michael: Aye. Motion carried, 4-0. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) H1. Consideration to Accept as Complete, File a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Retention, and Bonds for the Advanced Traffic Management Systems Phase I Project (Contract No. 2020-060). (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Baldwin Ngai, Associate Engineer, who gave the staff report on this item. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, to approve staff's recommendation. Roll Call Vote: Council Member Hutchison: Aye, Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy: Aye, Council Member Scott: Aye, and Mayor Michael: Aye. Motion carried, 4-0. H2. Consideration of Resolutions Approving the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) and Allocating a Portion of the City's and Fire District's Incremental Property Tax Revenue for the Rancho Cucamonga Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) and Authorizing Other Actions Related Thereto. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2022-050 AND FD2022-011) (CITY/FIRE) City Manager Gillison introduced Noah Daniels, Finance Director, who gave the staff report for this item. MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Kennedy,seconded by Council Member/Board Member Scott, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-050 and Resolution No. FD2022-011. Roll Call Vote: Council Member Hutchison: Aye, Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy: Aye, Council Member Scott: Aye, and Mayor Michael: Aye. Motion carried, 4-0. H3. Consideration to Receive and File the Summary of the Public Safety Response to 2022 Holiday Lights Display and Consideration of a Resolution Temporarily Closing Portions of Thoroughbred and Jennet Streets, West Sapphire Street and East of Turquoise Avenue, and a Portion of Turquoise Avenue Between Jennet and Thoroughbred Streets, to Pedestrian Traffic During the Area's 2022 Holiday Light Display. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-053) (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Mike Parmer,Assistant to the City Manager, and Ernie Perez, Chief of Police, who gave the staff report. Discussion ensued on costs to manage the area during the holiday lights display. MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Scott, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-053, temporarily closing portions of Thoroughbred and Jennet Streets, west of Sapphire Street and East of Turquoise Avenue, and a portion of Turquoise Avenue between Jennet and Thoroughbred Streets, to pedestrian traffic during the area's holiday light display, and making findings in support thereof. Roll Call Vote: Council Member Hutchison: Aye, Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy: Aye, Council Member Scott: Aye, and Mayor Michael: Aye. Motion carried, 4-0. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS 11. Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1003, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Section 2.16.030 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Pertaining to Salaries for Mayor and Members of the City Council. (ORDINANCE NO. 1003) (CITY) 12. Consideration of Resolution No. 2022-052,Amending Resolution 2022-021 to Adjust Certain City Council Benefits. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-052) (CITY) City Manager Gillison gave the staff report on item 11 and 12. May 18, 20221 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 Page 7 of 9 Page 14 MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-052 and introduce First Reading of Ordinance No. 1003, by title only and waive further reading. Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director, read the title of Ordinance No. 1003. VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-052 and introduce First Reading of Ordinance No. 1003, by title only and waive further reading. Roll Call Vote: Council Member Hutchison: Aye, Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy: Aye, Council Member Scott: Aye, and Mayor Michael: Aye. Motion carried, 4-0. 13. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS None. 14. INTERAGENCY UPDATES Council Member Scott announced that last week Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, herself and City staff attended the League of California Cities, City Leaders Summit Advocacy Days, in Sacramento, where they advocated for local control and for grant opportunities. J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS None. K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING None. L. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Michael recessed the City Council Meeting at 8:57 p.m.to Closed Session. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison(via audio conferencing), Kristine Scott, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services; Elisa Cox, Deputy City Manager/Cultural & Civic Services and Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development. May 18, 2022 I Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 8 of 9 Page 15 CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION Dl. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION (RCCEA) AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. — (CITY) D2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVSB2201969. (CITY) D3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. KULAR TRUCK LINE, INC., SBSC CASE NO.: CIVSB2201968. (CITY) D4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9333 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 022916223; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, AND OVERLAND, PACIFIC AND CUTLER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, OWNER; REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. —(CITY) D5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D)OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE:CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. BCORE IE WEST OWNER LLC, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVSB2201966. (CITY) D6. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 8920 8TH STREET, RANCHO CUCAMONGA; CITY NEGOTIATOR: JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: JULIAN F. TORKAN, MADISON CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. —(CITY) D7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH(1) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9; NAME OF CASE: PEPE'S INC. V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5:20CV02506JGBSP—(CITY) D8. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 020927211, 020914321, AND 020927222 AND CERTAIN ADJACENT RIGHTOFWAY INCLUDED WITHIN THE STATION FOOTPRINT; CITY NEGOTIATOR: JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; NEGOTIATING PARTIES: SARAH WATERSON, PRESIDENT, REPRESENTING DESERTXPRESS ENTERPRISES, LLC, DBA AS BRIGHTLINE WEST; UNDER NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. — (CITY) The Closed Session meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.; no reportable action taken. Respectfully submitted, Approved: ************************ Linda A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director May 18, 2022 I Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 9 of 9 Page 16 June 2, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL AND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER The City Council and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District held a Special Meeting on Thursday, June 2, 2022 in Tri-Communities Conference Room, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Mayor L. Dennis Michael called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. Present were Council Members: Ryan A. Hutchison, Kristine D. Scott, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne B. Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Elise Cox, Deputy City Manager/Cultural & Civic Services Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development; Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services; Tamara Layne, Finance Director; and Linda A. Troyan, City Clerk Services Director. Council Member Hutchison led the Pledge of Allegiance. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS None. C. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION C1. Discussion and Consideration of Proposed Budgets for Fiscal Year 2022/23. (Verbal Report) (Document is available for review at City Hall and the City's website at www.cityofrc.us). (FIRE/CITY) John Gillison, City Manager, outlined the proposed Budget for FY 2022/23 via PowerPoint and provided a summation of all City Budgets as follows: City General Fund $107,459,870 Fire Protection District* $73,572,430 Library Services $6,953,610 Special Funds (including CIP) $163,983,260 *Includes Fire Protection Capital Fund budget in the amount of$20,241,770. Staff responded to City Council questions and comments. Council thanked staff for a thorough budget document. The adoption of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget is scheduled for June 16, 2022 meeting. D. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda A. Troyan, MMC Approved: ***** City Clerk Services Director **DRAFT** June 2, 2022 I City Council and Fire Protection District Special Meeting MinutesPage 17 City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 1 June 16, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL AND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER The City Council and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District held a Special Meeting on Thursday, June 16, 2022 in Council Chambers, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor L. Dennis Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Council Members/Fire Board Members: Ryan A. Hutchison, Kristine D. Scott, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Elisa C. Cox, Assistant City Manager, Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development, Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services; Tamara Layne, Finance Director; and Linda A. Troyan, MMC, Director of City Clerk Services. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy led the Pledge of Allegiance. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS None. C. CONSENT CALENDAR Cl. Consideration of Approval of Revisions to Amended Fiscal Year 2021/22 Appropriations. (CITY) C2. Consideration to Approve and Adopt Revised Statements of Investment Policy for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) C3. Consideration to Approve the Following to be in Compliance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)Statement No.54: 1)Updated Fund Balance Policy;2)a Resolution Committing to the Level of Fiscal Reserves for the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and 3)a Resolution Committing to the Level of Fiscal Reserves for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022092 AND RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022021) (CITY/FIRE) C4. Consideration to Approve Updated City General Fund Reserve Funding Goals Policy. (CITY) C5. Consideration of an Interfund Loan Agreement and Authorizing an Appropriation in the Not to Exceed Amount of$14,035,700. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022088) (CITY) MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro TemNice-Chair Kennedy, seconded by Council Member/Board Member Scott, to approve Consent Calendar items C1 through C5. Motion carried, 4-0. D. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) D1. Consideration to Adopt the General Fund Preliminary Budget, Approve a Resolution Adopting the General Fund Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 202223, and set Approval of a Final Budget for the July 20, 2022 Board Meeting. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022016) (FIRE) D2. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the Budget and a Resolution Approving the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 202223 in Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 851. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022017) (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022018) (FIRE) **DRAFT** Page 18 June 16, 2022 I City Council and Fire Protection District Special Meeting Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 2 D3. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the Budget and a Resolution Approving the Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 202223 in Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 881. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022019) (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022020) (FIRE) D4. Consideration to Approve Resolutions Adopting the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget, the Article XIIIB Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2022/23, and the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2022/23. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2022069 AND 2022070) (CITY) City Manager, John Gillison, provided a verbal Staff Report for items D1 through D4. He noted that the budget presented is the same one reviewed by the City Council at the Budget Study Session, with the addition of one staff member position in the City Manager's Office to provide administrative support. MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chair Kennedy, seconded by Council Member/Board Member Scott, to approve Items D1 through D4. Motion carried, 4-0. E. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director Approved: ********* **DRAFT** Page 19 June 16, 2022 I City Council and Fire Protection District Special Meeting Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 2 of 2 cep � NONRRGUCq O/!I r- ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C. rrr c - FIRE DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $3,999,236.38 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $8,813,974.62 Dated June 06, 2022, Through July 10, 2022 and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for the Month of June in the Total Amount of $7,818,051.85. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Bi-weekly payroll is $2,281,642.41 and $1,717,593.97 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. Weekly check register amounts are $7,454,288.90 and $1,359,685.72 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. Electronic Debit Register amounts are $3,482,775.83 and $4,335,276.02 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register Attachment 2 — Electronic Debit Register Page 20 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00014379 06/06/2022 AIRGAS USA LLC 0.00 241.81 241.81 AP 00014380 06/06/2022 BRODART CO 24,209.29 0.00 24,209.29 AP 00014381 06/06/2022 DEMCO INC 80.68 0.00 80.68 AP 00014382 06/06/2022 MINUTEMAN PRESS 755.76 468.01 1,223.77 *** AP 00014383 06/06/2022 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 1,723.67 0.00 1,723.67 AP 00014384 06/08/2022 ABSOLUTE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL INC 32,764.01 0.00 32,764.01 AP 00014385 06/08/2022 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 14,390.39 0.00 14,390.39 AP 00014386 06/08/2022 AMAZON WEB SERVICES INC 2,805.65 0.00 2,805.65 AP 00014387 06/08/2022 BERNELL HYDRAULICS INC 1,133.78 0.00 1,133.78 AP 00014388 06/08/2022 CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC 7,462.78 0.00 7,462.78 AP 00014389 06/08/2022 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1,088.80 0.00 1,088.80 AP 00014390 06/08/2022 DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA 43,216.42 0.00 43,216.42 AP 00014391 06/08/2022 ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC 136,723.31 0.00 136,723.31 AP 00014392 06/08/2022 EMCOR SERVICES 15,188.65 2,005.90 17,194.55 *** AP 00014393 06/08/2022 GFOUR PRODUCTIONS LLC 55,205.51 0.00 55,205.51 AP 00014394 06/08/2022 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY INC 5,567.66 0.00 5,567.66 AP 00014395 06/08/2022 RICHARDS WATSON&GERSHON 113,285.12 1,023.70 114,308.82 *** AP 00014396 06/08/2022 YUNEX LLC 36,071.40 0.00 36,071.40 AP 00014397 06/09/2022 ABC LOCKSMITHS INC 347.50 92.67 440.17 *** AP 00014398 06/09/2022 AIRGAS USA LLC 436.13 0.00 436.13 AP 00014399 06/09/2022 BSN SPORTS LLC 6,888.28 0.00 6,888.28 AP 00014400 06/09/2022 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 527.08 0.00 527.08 AP 00014401 06/09/2022 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC 1,463.90 0.00 1,463.90 AP 00014402 06/09/2022 GALLS LLC 0.00 475.47 475.47 AP 00014403 06/09/2022 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 4,881.95 0.00 4,881.95 AP 00014404 06/09/2022 HOSE-MAN INC 172.93 0.00 172.93 AP 00014405 06/09/2022 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 1,461.10 0.00 1,461.10 AP 00014406 06/09/2022 PSA PRINT GROUP 282.31 0.00 282.31 AP 00014407 06/09/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NEWS GROUP 10,185.54 0.00 10,185.54 AP 00014408 06/15/2022 360 DEEP CLEANING LLC 0.00 7,085.00 7,085.00 AP 00014409 06/15/2022 AMG&ASSOCIATES INC 1,543.75 397,032.01 398,575.76 *** AP 00014410 06/15/2022 ASSI SECURITY 165.00 0.00 165.00 AP 00014411 06/15/2022 BEST BEST&KRIEGER LLP 11,194.96 0.00 11,194.96 AP 00014412 06/15/2022 CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMONGA 27,379.49 0.00 27,379.49 AP 00014413 06/15/2022 CALPINE ENERGY SERVICES LP 123,750.00 0.00 123,750.00 AP 00014414 06/15/2022 CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC 71,266.31 0.00 71,266.31 AP 00014415 06/15/2022 CT WEST INC 9,983.47 0.00 9,983.47 AP 00014416 06/15/2022 MGT OF AMERICA INC 1,750.00 0.00 1,750.00 AP 00014417 06/15/2022 RCCEA 1,443.75 0.00 1,443.75 AP 00014418 06/15/2022 RCPFA 12,651.83 0.00 12,651.83 AP 00014419 06/15/2022 RE ASTORIA 2 LLC 130,266.10 0.00 130,266.10 AP 00014420 06/15/2022 SAM ROMEO INVESTMENTS INC 40,319.30 0.00 40,319.30 AP 00014421 06/15/2022 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 78.00 0.00 78.00 AP 00014422 06/15/2022 VIGILANT SOLUTIONS LLC 13,129.33 0.00 13,129.33 AP 00014423 06/16/2022 ABC LOCKSMITHS INC 348.34 0.00 348.34 AP 00014424 06/16/2022 AIRGAS USA LLC 0.00 1,838.02 1,838.02 AP 00014425 06/16/2022 BIBLIOTHECA LLC 6,145.69 0.00 6,145.69 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 1 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page ime: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00014426 06/16/2022 BSN SPORTS LLC 2,190.98 0.00 2,190.98 AP 00014427 06/16/2022 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 0.00 106.65 106.65 AP 00014428 06/16/2022 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 3,528.00 0.00 3,528.00 AP 00014429 06/16/2022 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 639.11 0.00 639.11 AP 00014430 06/16/2022 FIRE ETC 0.00 1,874.63 1,874.63 AP 00014431 06/16/2022 GALLS LLC 0.00 78.29 78.29 AP 00014432 06/16/2022 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 947.13 0.00 947.13 AP 00014433 06/16/2022 HOSE-MAN INC 0.00 281.44 281.44 AP 00014434 06/16/2022 LN CURTIS&SONS 0.00 4,265.42 4,265.42 AP 00014435 06/16/2022 MINUTEMAN PRESS 522.59 1,066.05 1,588.64 *** AP 00014436 06/16/2022 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 3,159.62 79.83 3,239.45 *** AP 00014437 06/16/2022 THOMPSON PLUMBING SUPPLY INC 203.27 0.00 203.27 AP 00014442 06/22/2022 360 DEEP CLEANING LLC 0.00 1,608.00 1,608.00 AP 00014443 06/22/2022 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 13,177.86 0.00 13,177.86 AP 00014444 06/22/2022 CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC 883.63 0.00 883.63 AP 00014445 06/22/2022 COVERMASTER INC 14,689.78 0.00 14,689.78 AP 00014446 06/22/2022 DELL MARKETING LP 9,700.22 0.00 9,700.22 AP 00014447 06/22/2022 EMCOR SERVICES 18,189.00 425.00 18,614.00 *** AP 00014448 06/22/2022 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY INC 15,679.17 0.00 15,679.17 AP 00014449 06/22/2022 HAMPTON YOGA 594.00 0.00 594.00 AP 00014450 06/22/2022 HERC RENTALS INC 3,587.82 0.00 3,587.82 AP 00014451 06/22/2022 RICHARDS WATSON&GERSHON 13,490.76 0.00 13,490.76 AP 00014453 06/22/2022 AHUMADA,ALEXANDER R 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014454 06/22/2022 ALMAND,LLOYD 0.00 232.94 232.94 AP 00014455 06/22/2022 BANTAU,VICTORIA 0.00 456.06 456.06 AP 00014456 06/22/2022 BAZAL,SUSAN 0.00 698.71 698.71 AP 00014457 06/22/2022 BELL,MICHAEL L 0.00 1,577.74 1,577.74 AP 00014458 06/22/2022 BERRY,DAVID 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014459 06/22/2022 BROCK,ROBIN 0.00 1,096.31 1,096.31 AP 00014460 06/22/2022 CAMPBELL,GERALD 0.00 456.06 456.06 AP 00014461 06/22/2022 CAMPBELL,STEVEN 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014462 06/22/2022 CARNES,KENNETH 0.00 456.06 456.06 AP 00014463 06/22/2022 CLABBY,RICHARD 0.00 1,290.56 1,290.56 AP 00014464 06/22/2022 CLOUGHESY,DONALD R 0.00 2,095.76 2,095.76 AP 00014465 06/22/2022 CORCORAN,ROBERT ANTHONY 0.00 714.37 714.37 AP 00014466 06/22/2022 COSTELLO,DENNIS M 0.00 2,055.05 2,055.05 AP 00014467 06/22/2022 COX,KARL 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014468 06/22/2022 CRANE,RALPH 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014469 06/22/2022 CROSSLAND,WILBUR 0.00 456.06 456.06 AP 00014470 06/22/2022 CURATALO,JAMES 0.00 1,096.31 1,096.31 AP 00014471 06/22/2022 DAGUE,JAMES 0.00 1,080.65 1,080.65 AP 00014472 06/22/2022 DAVENPORT,JAY 0.00 2,014.34 2,014.34 AP 00014473 06/22/2022 DE ANTONIO,SUSAN 0.00 714.37 714.37 AP 00014474 06/22/2022 DEANS,JACKIE 0.00 232.94 232.94 AP 00014475 06/22/2022 DOMINICK,SAMUEL A 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014476 06/22/2022 EAGLESON,MICHAEL 0.00 1,577.74 1,577.74 AP 00014477 06/22/2022 EGGERS,BOB 0.00 1,080.65 1,080.65 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 2 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page'nine: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00014478 06/22/2022 FEJERAN,TIM 0.00 1,722.43 1,722.43 AP 00014479 06/22/2022 FRITCHEY,JOHN D 0.00 456.06 456.06 AP 00014480 06/22/2022 HEYDE,DONALD 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014481 06/22/2022 HOLT,DANNY G 0.00 1,263.04 1,263.04 AP 00014482 06/22/2022 1NTERLICCHIA,ROSALYN 0.00 232.94 232.94 AP 00014483 06/22/2022 JERKINS,PATRICK 0.00 1,722.43 1,722.43 AP 00014484 06/22/2022 KILMER,STEPHEN 0.00 1,290.56 1,290.56 AP 00014485 06/22/2022 KIRKPATRICK,WILLIAM M 0.00 698.71 698.71 AP 00014486 06/22/2022 LANE,WILLIAM 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014487 06/22/2022 LARKIN,DAVID W 0.00 1,722.43 1,722.43 AP 00014488 06/22/2022 LEE,ALLAN J 0.00 232.94 232.94 AP 00014489 06/22/2022 LENZE,PAUL E 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014490 06/22/2022 LONCAR,PHILIP 0.00 1,546.42 1,546.42 AP 00014491 06/22/2022 LONGO,JOE 0.00 153.53 153.53 AP 00014492 06/22/2022 LUTTRULL,DARRELL 0.00 456.06 456.06 AP 00014493 06/22/2022 MACKALL,BEVERLY 0.00 153.53 153.53 AP 00014494 06/22/2022 MAYFIELD,RON 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014495 06/22/2022 MCKEE,JOHN 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014496 06/22/2022 MCNEIL,KENNETH 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014497 06/22/2022 MICHAEL,L.DENNIS 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014498 06/22/2022 MORGAN,BYRON 0.00 1,968.84 1,968.84 AP 00014499 06/22/2022 MYSKOW,DENNIS 0.00 1,290.56 1,290.56 AP 00014500 06/22/2022 NAUMAN,MICHAEL 0.00 456.06 456.06 AP 00014501 06/22/2022 NELSON,MARY JANE 0.00 153.53 153.53 AP 00014502 06/22/2022 NOREEN,ERIC 0.00 2,095.76 2,095.76 AP 00014503 06/22/2022 O'BRIEN,TOM 0.00 1,577.74 1,577.74 AP 00014504 06/22/2022 PLOUNG,MICHAEL J 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014505 06/22/2022 POST,MICHAEL R 0.00 1,546.42 1,546.42 AP 00014506 06/22/2022 PROULX,PATRICK 0.00 1,096.31 1,096.31 AP 00014507 06/22/2022 REDMOND,MICHAEL 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014508 06/22/2022 ROBERTS,BRENT 0.00 714.37 714.37 AP 00014509 06/22/2022 ROBERTS,CHERYL L 0.00 2,095.76 2,095.76 AP 00014510 06/22/2022 ROEDER,JEFFREY 0.00 1,577.74 1,577.74 AP 00014511 06/22/2022 ROJER,IVAN M. 0.00 1,722.43 1,722.43 AP 00014512 06/22/2022 SALISBURY,THOMAS 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014513 06/22/2022 SMITH,RONALD 0.00 456.06 456.06 AP 00014514 06/22/2022 SORENSEN,SCOTT D 0.00 996.82 996.82 AP 00014515 06/22/2022 SPAIN,WILLIAM 0.00 456.06 456.06 AP 00014516 06/22/2022 SULLIVAN,JAMES 0.00 456.06 456.06 AP 00014517 06/22/2022 TAYLOR,STEVEN 0.00 1,878.66 1,878.66 AP 00014518 06/22/2022 TOLL,RICHARD 0.00 2,095.76 2,095.76 AP 00014519 06/22/2022 TULEY,TERRY 0.00 1,577.74 1,577.74 AP 00014520 06/22/2022 VANDERKALLEN,FRANCIS 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014521 06/22/2022 VARNEY,ANTHONY 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014522 06/22/2022 WALTON,KEVIN 0.00 1,722.43 1,722.43 AP 00014523 06/22/2022 YOWELL,TIMOTHY A 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00014525 06/23/2022 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 4,832.23 132.04 4,964.27 *** User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 3 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wine: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00014526 06/23/2022 PSA PRINT GROUP 232.74 0.00 232.74 AP 00014527 06/29/2022 AIR EXCHANGE INC 0.00 2,143.80 2,143.80 AP 00014528 06/29/2022 AMG&ASSOCIATES INC 0.00 274,110.34 274,110.34 AP 00014529 06/29/2022 CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMONGA 24,207.77 0.00 24,207.77 AP 00014530 06/29/2022 CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC 2,433.60 0.00 2,433.60 AP 00014531 06/29/2022 CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 40,171.42 0.00 40,171.42 AP 00014532 06/29/2022 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1,088.80 0.00 1,088.80 AP 00014533 06/29/2022 DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA 40,876.26 0.00 40,876.26 AP 00014534 06/29/2022 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 220.68 0.00 220.68 AP 00014535 06/29/2022 EMCOR SERVICES 26,034.35 13,325.75 39,360.10 *** AP 00014536 06/29/2022 GOLDEN STATE RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 102,153.00 1,272.00 103,425.00 *** AP 00014537 06/29/2022 HERC RENTALS INC 834.11 0.00 834.11 AP 00014538 06/29/2022 RCCEA 1,424.25 0.00 1,424.25 AP 00014539 06/29/2022 RCPFA 12,651.83 0.00 12,651.83 AP 00014540 06/29/2022 RICHARDS WATSON&GERSHON 75,461.92 1,181.60 76,643.52 *** AP 00014541 06/29/2022 SHELL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA 465,217.32 0.00 465,217.32 AP 00014542 06/29/2022 YUNEX LLC 3,532.32 0.00 3,532.32 AP 00014543 07/06/2022 ASSI SECURITY 5,003.44 0.00 5,003.44 AP 00014544 07/06/2022 ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC 82,373.31 0.00 82,373.31 AP 00014545 07/06/2022 EMCOR SERVICES 5,008.00 973.75 5,981.75 *** AP 00014546 07/06/2022 FEHR&PEERS 29,907.89 0.00 29,907.89 AP 00014547 07/06/2022 GEMINI PROJECTS 15,500.00 0.00 15,500.00 AP 00014548 07/06/2022 PRIVATE BRAND MFG 274.77 0.00 274.77 AP 00014549 07/06/2022 RE ASTORIA 2 LLC 101,423.49 0.00 101,423.49 AP 00014550 07/06/2022 SARGENT TOWN PLANNING INC 7,663.00 0.00 7,663.00 AP 00014551 07/06/2022 SCOTT MCLEOD PLUMBING INC 21,815.74 0.00 21,815.74 AP 00014552 07/06/2022 YUNEX LLC 8,242.68 0.00 8,242.68 AP 00424969 06/06/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 55.00 0.00 55.00 AP 00424970 06/06/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00424971 06/06/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 435.23 0.00 435.23 AP 00424972 06/06/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 32.26 0.00 32.26 AP 00424973 06/06/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 342.73 0.00 342.73 AP 00424974 06/08/2022 A-Z BUS SALES INC-COLTON 1,026.00 0.00 1,026.00 AP 00424975 06/08/2022 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 4,086.58 0.00 4,086.58 AP 00424976 06/08/2022 ALL STAR ELITE SPORTS 1,823.84 0.00 1,823.84 AP 00424977 06/08/2022 AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS LTD 150.00 0.00 150.00 AP 00424978 06/08/2022 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 504.90 0.00 504.90 AP 00424979 06/08/2022 ARCHIBALD PET HOSPITAL 400.00 0.00 400.00 AP 00424980 06/08/2022 ARROW TRAILER SUPPLIES INC 188.46 0.00 188.46 AP 00424981 06/08/2022 ARTISTIC RESOURCES CORPORATION 5,405.71 0.00 5,405.71 AP 00424982 06/08/2022 BAKER,NICK 5,873.50 0.00 5,873.50 AP 00424983 06/08/2022 BARTEL ASSOCIATES LLC 0.00 7,261.00 7,261.00 AP 00424984 06/08/2022 BEST OUTDOOR POWER INLAND LLC 715.65 0.00 715.65 AP 00424985 06/08/2022 BISHOP COMPANY 434.91 0.00 434.91 AP 00424986 06/08/2022 C V W D 282.53 0.00 282.53 AP 00424987 06/08/2022 C V W D 0.00 870.14 870.14 AP 00424988 06/08/2022 C V W D 303.23 0.00 303.23 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 4 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page ime: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00424993 06/08/2022 C V W D 93,598.75 0.00 93,598.75 AP 00424994 06/08/2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY 4,148.38 0.00 4,148.38 AP 00424995 06/08/2022 CalPERS LONG-TERM CARE PROGRAM 177.08 0.00 177.08 AP 00424996 06/08/2022 CASTILLO,JESSIE 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00424997 06/08/2022 CHAMPION FIRE SYSTEMS INC 6,648.00 2,780.00 9,428.00 *** AP 00424998 06/08/2022 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 4,492.75 6,458.42 10,951.17 *** AP 00424999 06/08/2022 CHEN,PUO YANG 63.98 0.00 63.98 AP 00425000 06/08/2022 CHEN,QIUHONG 66.06 0.00 66.06 AP 00425001 06/08/2022 CHINO MOWER&EQUIPMENT 654.50 0.00 654.50 AP 00425002 06/08/2022 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 3,907.92 0.00 3,907.92 AP 00425003 06/08/2022 CLARK,KAREN 384.00 0.00 384.00 AP 00425004 06/08/2022 CLIMATEC LLC 8,088.50 0.00 8,088.50 AP 00425005 06/08/2022 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION SVCS INC 9,138.90 0.00 9,138.90 AP 00425006 06/08/2022 CORONA CLAY COMPANY INC 1,407.50 0.00 1,407.50 AP 00425007 06/08/2022 COSTCO MEMBERSHIP 120.00 0.00 120.00 AP 00425008 06/08/2022 COVETRUS NORTH AMERICA 345.25 0.00 345.25 AP 00425009 06/08/2022 CR&A CUSTOM INC 13,701.59 0.00 13,701.59 AP 00425010 06/08/2022 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN LLC 540.00 0.00 540.00 AP 00425011 06/08/2022 D&K CONCRETE COMPANY 1,363.78 0.00 1,363.78 AP 00425012 06/08/2022 DATA TICKET INC 12,234.06 0.00 12,234.06 AP 00425013 06/08/2022 E GROUP,THE 450.00 0.00 450.00 AP 00425014 06/08/2022 EAGLE ROAD SERVICE&TIRE 672.45 0.00 672.45 AP 00425015 06/08/2022 ELITE CUSTOMS CONSTRUCTION 8,925.00 0.00 8,925.00 AP 00425016 06/08/2022 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 25.09 0.00 25.09 AP 00425017 06/08/2022 FIALLOS,WILSON 2,304.00 0.00 2,304.00 AP 00425018 06/08/2022 FITNESS REPAIR SHOP 149.00 700.00 849.00 *** AP 00425019 06/08/2022 FRONTIER COMM 1,418.98 599.51 2,018.49 *** AP 00425020 06/08/2022 FUEL SERV 2,860.71 1,045.42 3,906.13 *** AP 00425021 06/08/2022 GARCIA,STEPHANIE 123.31 0.00 123.31 AP 00425022 06/08/2022 GRACEFUL ANIMAL HOSPITAL 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00425023 06/08/2022 GRAINGER 3,269.06 0.00 3,269.06 AP 00425024 06/08/2022 GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC 5,133.22 0.00 5,133.22 AP 00425025 06/08/2022 HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 516.78 0.00 516.78 AP 00425026 06/08/2022 HERITAGE WELLNESS COLLECTIVE 1,059.00 0.00 1,059.00 AP 00425027 06/08/2022 HILL'S PET NUTRITION SALES INC 898.57 0.00 898.57 AP 00425028 06/08/2022 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS&ASSOCIATES 5,602.21 0.00 5,602.21 AP 00425029 06/08/2022 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC 7,449.75 0.00 7,449.75 AP 00425030 06/08/2022 HUMANE SOCIETY OF SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY 169.00 0.00 169.00 AP 00425031 06/08/2022 IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC 801.33 0.00 801.33 AP 00425032 06/08/2022 IMPETT VETERINARY INC 2,280.00 0.00 2,280.00 AP 00425033 06/08/2022 JOHNNY ALLEN TENNIS ACADEMY 3,120.00 0.00 3,120.00 AP 00425034 06/08/2022 JURMAN,KIMBERLY 225.00 0.00 225.00 AP 00425035 06/08/2022 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC 244,865.59 0.00 244,865.59 AP 00425036 06/08/2022 KERSHNER,GREGORY A 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 AP 00425037 06/08/2022 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC 4,860.00 0.00 4,860.00 AP 00425038 06/08/2022 KNIGHT LEADERSHIP SOLUTIONS 6,552.00 0.00 6,552.00 AP 00425039 06/08/2022 LDD CONSULTING SERVICES 3,268.75 0.00 3,268.75 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 5 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wine: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425040 06/08/2022 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 4,845.10 0.00 4,845.10 AP 00425042 06/08/2022 LOWES COMPANIES INC 4,457.29 2,733.06 7,190.35 *** AP 00425043 06/08/2022 MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC 1,416.13 0.00 1,416.13 AP 00425044 06/08/2022 MGT OF AMERICA INC 5,400.00 0.00 5,400.00 AP 00425045 06/08/2022 NEWCO DISTRIBUTORS INC 1,384.37 0.00 1,384.37 AP 00425046 06/08/2022 NUNEZ,FLAVIO 23.02 0.00 23.02 AP 00425047 06/08/2022 NV5 INC 13,310.14 0.00 13,310.14 AP 00425049 06/08/2022 ONTARIO SPAY&NEUTER INC 3,455.00 0.00 3,455.00 AP 00425050 06/08/2022 ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 358.96 0.00 358.96 AP 00425051 06/08/2022 OU,YULI 91.35 0.00 91.35 AP 00425052 06/08/2022 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 3,174.00 0.00 3,174.00 AP 00425053 06/08/2022 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 728.50 0.00 728.50 AP 00425054 06/08/2022 SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION 0.00 178.90 178.90 AP 00425055 06/08/2022 SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION 355.95 0.00 355.95 AP 00425056 06/08/2022 SHRED PROS 60.00 0.00 60.00 AP 00425057 06/08/2022 SIDEPATH INC 8,200.00 0.00 8,200.00 AP 00425058 06/08/2022 SMITH,JERAL 8.33 0.00 8.33 AP 00425060 06/08/2022 SOCAL OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES 3,650.94 11.26 3,662.20 *** AP 00425061 06/08/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21,661.66 110.14 21,771.80 *** AP 00425062 06/08/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 847.29 1,977.01 2,824.30 *** AP 00425063 06/08/2022 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 3,260.35 0.00 3,260.35 AP 00425064 06/08/2022 TAI,IAN 180.00 0.00 180.00 AP 00425065 06/08/2022 TERRY,DONNA 250.00 0.00 250.00 AP 00425066 06/08/2022 U.S.BANK PARS ACCT#6746022500 19,427.67 0.00 19,427.67 AP 00425067 06/08/2022 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 165.10 0.00 165.10 AP 00425068 06/08/2022 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC 323.57 0.00 323.57 AP 00425069 06/08/2022 UPS 36.00 0.00 36.00 AP 00425070 06/08/2022 VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES INC 8,000.00 0.00 8,000.00 AP 00425071 06/08/2022 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA 46.32 0.00 46.32 AP 00425072 06/08/2022 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA 257.05 0.00 257.05 AP 00425073 06/08/2022 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA 5,586.61 0.00 5,586.61 AP 00425074 06/08/2022 VETS CHOICE RADIOLOGY 763.00 0.00 763.00 AP 00425075 06/08/2022 VICTOR MEDICAL COMPANY 1,677.62 0.00 1,677.62 AP 00425076 06/08/2022 VICTORIA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00425077 06/08/2022 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY 166.12 0.00 166.12 AP 00425078 06/08/2022 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 777.36 0.00 777.36 AP 00425079 06/08/2022 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 3,752.28 0.00 3,752.28 AP 00425080 06/08/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 41,233.05 0.00 41,233.05 AP 00425081 06/08/2022 WESTLAND GROUP INC 3,554.50 0.00 3,554.50 AP 00425082 06/08/2022 WESTLAND GROUP INC 27,122.50 0.00 27,122.50 AP 00425083 06/08/2022 WESTLAND GROUP INC 64,237.50 0.00 64,237.50 AP 00425084 06/08/2022 WESTLAND GROUP INC 2,528.75 0.00 2,528.75 AP 00425085 06/08/2022 WILSON&BELL AUTO SERVICE 376.12 0.00 376.12 AP 00425086 06/08/2022 ZHANG,ANNA 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 AP 00425087 06/08/2022 ZOETIS US LLC 742.15 0.00 742.15 AP 00425088 06/09/2022 NEXTECH SYSTEMS INC 25,000.00 24,889.00 49,889.00 *** AP 00425089 06/09/2022 PRISTINE UNIFORMS LLC 0.00 14,550.71 14,550.71 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 6 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page i}ne: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425090 06/09/2022 RIVERA,RAY E 1,100.00 0.00 1,100.00 AP 00425091 06/14/2022 GLOW BEAUTY BAR 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 AP 00425092 06/14/2022 OKO YUMMY INC 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00 AP 00425093 06/15/2022 ABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 4,752.95 0.00 4,752.95 AP 00425094 06/15/2022 ADOBE ANIMAL HOSPITAL 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00425095 06/15/2022 ADVANCED CHEMICAL TRANSPORT INC 1,833.50 0.00 1,833.50 AP 00425096 06/15/2022 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 24.58 0.00 24.58 AP 00425097 06/15/2022 AQUABIO ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES INC 1,450.00 0.00 1,450.00 AP 00425098 06/15/2022 ASBURY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 0.00 246.16 246.16 AP 00425099 06/15/2022 ATLAS PLANNING SOLUTIONS 0.00 2,088.00 2,088.00 AP 00425100 06/15/2022 AUFBAU CORPORATION 0.00 9,680.00 9,680.00 AP 00425101 06/15/2022 AUTO&RV SPECIALISTS INC 185.30 0.00 185.30 AP 00425102 06/15/2022 BAY ALARM COMPANY 108.00 0.00 108.00 AP 00425103 06/15/2022 BEST OUTDOOR POWER INLAND LLC 7,850.75 0.00 7,850.75 AP 00425104 06/15/2022 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 0.00 1,501.96 1,501.96 AP 00425105 06/15/2022 BOUR,JEAN-PAUL 1,292.00 0.00 1,292.00 AP 00425106 06/15/2022 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC 20,561.38 0.00 20,561.38 AP 00425107 06/15/2022 BRINKS INCORPORATED 2,327.77 0.00 2,327.77 AP 00425108 06/15/2022 BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA INC 5,200.00 0.00 5,200.00 AP 00425109 06/15/2022 BURGUAN,RENE 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 AP 00425110 06/15/2022 BURNS,CHRISTOPHER 0.00 37.85 37.85 AP 00425112 06/15/2022 C V W D 20,174.92 0.00 20,174.92 AP 00425113 06/15/2022 CAL FIRE 0.00 198,080.78 198,080.78 AP 00425114 06/15/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00425115 06/15/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00425116 06/15/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 435.23 0.00 435.23 AP 00425117 06/15/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 342.73 0.00 342.73 AP 00425118 06/15/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 32.26 0.00 32.26 AP 00425119 06/15/2022 CalPERS LONG-TERM CARE PROGRAM 177.08 0.00 177.08 AP 00425120 06/15/2022 CAMERON-DANIEL PC 3,263.50 0.00 3,263.50 AP 00425121 06/15/2022 CHAMPION AWARDS&SPECIALTIES 21.55 0.00 21.55 AP 00425122 06/15/2022 CHAMPION FIRE SYSTEMS INC 7,940.00 1,390.00 9,330.00 *** AP 00425123 06/15/2022 CHAN,MICHAEL 0.00 581.43 581.43 AP 00425124 06/15/2022 CHEMICAL SAFETY TRAINING 0.00 325.00 325.00 AP 00425125 06/15/2022 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 956.74 824.77 1,781.51 *** AP 00425126 06/15/2022 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK 81.25 20,896.42 20,977.67 *** AP 00425127 06/15/2022 COMPRESSED AIR SPECIALTIES 0.00 497.56 497.56 AP 00425128 06/15/2022 CONCEPT POWDER COATING 360.00 0.00 360.00 AP 00425129 06/15/2022 CONOR CONSULTING LLC 487.50 0.00 487.50 AP 00425130 06/15/2022 COUNTS UNLIMITED 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 AP 00425131 06/15/2022 COVETRUS NORTH AMERICA 1,113.49 0.00 1,113.49 AP 00425132 06/15/2022 CPS HR CONSULTING 3,175.00 0.00 3,175.00 AP 00425133 06/15/2022 CROWN POINTE INVESTIGATIONS LLC 0.00 24,000.00 24,000.00 AP 00425134 06/15/2022 D&K CONCRETE COMPANY 657.81 0.00 657.81 AP 00425135 06/15/2022 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 0.00 32.00 32.00 AP 00425136 06/15/2022 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,CALIF 11,658.67 0.00 11,658.67 AP 00425137 06/15/2022 DIRECTV 153.67 0.00 153.67 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 7 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Rile: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425138 06/15/2022 EICKHOLT,PATRICIA 0.00 63.26 63.26 AP 00425139 06/15/2022 EXECUTIVE DETAIL SERVICES 0.00 640.00 640.00 AP 00425140 06/15/2022 EXPERIAN 52.00 0.00 52.00 AP 00425141 06/15/2022 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 0.00 139.13 139.13 AP 00425142 06/15/2022 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 29.73 0.00 29.73 AP 00425143 06/15/2022 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 89.56 0.00 89.56 AP 00425144 06/15/2022 FLEET SERVICES INC 0.00 1,433.35 1,433.35 AP 00425145 06/15/2022 FRANKLIN TRUCK PARTS INC 0.00 20.36 20.36 AP 00425146 06/15/2022 GATEWAY PET CEMETERY&CREMATORY 490.00 0.00 490.00 AP 00425147 06/15/2022 GLOBALSTAR USA 154.16 0.00 154.16 AP 00425148 06/15/2022 GOLDEN OAKS VET HOSPITAL 575.92 0.00 575.92 AP 00425149 06/15/2022 GRAINGER 5,118.18 834.32 5,952.50 *** AP 00425150 06/15/2022 GRIFFIN,ALESSANDRA 0.00 147.97 147.97 AP 00425151 06/15/2022 HARRIS,TY 251.42 111.28 362.70 *** AP 00425152 06/15/2022 HILL'S PET NUTRITION SALES INC 595.86 0.00 595.86 AP 00425153 06/15/2022 HLP INC 37,975.20 0.00 37,975.20 AP 00425154 06/15/2022 HOLT,RYAN 0.00 324.00 324.00 AP 00425155 06/15/2022 HUNT,CAMERIN SCOTT 15.21 0.00 15.21 AP 00425156 06/15/2022 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 399.00 346.50 745.50 *** AP 00425157 06/15/2022 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 0.00 119.97 119.97 AP 00425158 06/15/2022 INTERNET CENTRICS LLC 0.00 499.40 499.40 AP 00425159 06/15/2022 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER 983.75 0.00 983.75 AP 00425160 06/15/2022 ITERIS INC 31,875.68 0.00 31,875.68 AP 00425161 06/15/2022 KOA CORPORATION 3,649.29 0.00 3,649.29 AP 00425162 06/15/2022 LANCE SOLE&LUNGHARD 30,050.00 990.00 31,040.00 *** AP 00425163 06/15/2022 LANDSCAPE WEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 114,210.75 0.00 114,210.75 AP 00425164 06/15/2022 LEONARD'S DIESEL REPAIR 4,386.43 0.00 4,386.43 AP 00425165 06/15/2022 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC 5,691.50 0.00 5,691.50 AP 00425166 06/15/2022 LI,HONGMEI 664.00 0.00 664.00 AP 00425167 06/15/2022 LIFE-ASSIST INC 0.00 1,920.62 1,920.62 AP 00425168 06/15/2022 LIVING SPACES 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 AP 00425169 06/15/2022 LU'S LIGHTHOUSE INC 580.90 0.00 580.90 AP 00425170 06/15/2022 MAIN STREET SIGNS 1,011.01 0.00 1,011.01 AP 00425171 06/15/2022 MARCO EQUIPMENT CO 618.13 0.00 618.13 AP 00425173 06/15/2022 MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC 154,324.37 2,666.31 156,990.68 *** AP 00425174 06/15/2022 MARLINK INC 0.00 162.00 162.00 AP 00425175 06/15/2022 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 13.88 268.55 282.43 *** AP 00425176 06/15/2022 NAPA AUTO PARTS 316.79 -174.87 141.92 *** AP 00425177 06/15/2022 NATIONAL UTILITY LOCATORS LLC 2,520.00 0.00 2,520.00 AP 00425178 06/15/2022 NAUMANN HOBBS MATERIAL HANDLING 863.78 0.00 863.78 AP 00425179 06/15/2022 N1NYO&MOORE 0.00 22,725.00 22,725.00 AP 00425180 06/15/2022 ONTARIO,CITY OF 44,609.96 0.00 44,609.96 AP 00425181 06/15/2022 ONTRAC 21.10 0.00 21.10 AP 00425182 06/15/2022 ONYX ARCHITECTS INC 11,482.75 0.00 11,482.75 AP 00425183 06/15/2022 PARKHOUSE TIRE INC 400.26 0.00 400.26 AP 00425184 06/15/2022 PINNACLE PETROLEUM INC 44,282.51 21,579.59 65,862.10 *** AP 00425185 06/15/2022 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 53.36 0.00 53.36 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 8 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page ne: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425186 06/15/2022 PRIME GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS INC 15,450.00 0.00 15,450.00 AP 00425187 06/15/2022 PRO SPRAY EQUIPMENT 429.02 0.00 429.02 AP 00425188 06/15/2022 PUMPMAN LLC 4,633.00 0.00 4,633.00 AP 00425189 06/15/2022 QUINN COMPANY 0.00 36.40 36.40 AP 00425190 06/15/2022 R3 CONSULTING GROUP INC 567.50 0.00 567.50 AP 00425191 06/15/2022 RANCHO MALL LLC 4,000.00 0.00 4,000.00 AP 00425192 06/15/2022 RANCHO SMOG CENTER 314.65 0.00 314.65 AP 00425193 06/15/2022 RBM LOCK&KEY SERVICE 34.48 0.00 34.48 AP 00425194 06/15/2022 RJ THOMAS MFG COMPANY INC 4,437.39 0.00 4,437.39 AP 00425195 06/15/2022 SAFE-ENTRY TECHNICAL INC 0.00 350.00 350.00 AP 00425196 06/15/2022 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 15,443.92 0.00 15,443.92 AP 00425197 06/15/2022 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 0.00 52.14 52.14 AP 00425198 06/15/2022 SBCTOA 0.00 234.87 234.87 AP 00425199 06/15/2022 SBPEA 2,248.80 0.00 2,248.80 AP 00425200 06/15/2022 SCOTT MCLEOD PLUMBING INC 3,919.88 0.00 3,919.88 AP 00425201 06/15/2022 SCOTT,MICHAEL 171.74 0.00 171.74 AP 00425202 06/15/2022 SHARPLINE SOLUTIONS INC 908.77 0.00 908.77 AP 00425203 06/15/2022 SHRED PROS 0.00 63.00 63.00 AP 00425204 06/15/2022 SIDEPATH INC 37,500.00 0.00 37,500.00 AP 00425205 06/15/2022 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC 193,432.14 0.00 193,432.14 AP 00425206 06/15/2022 SIGN SHOP,THE 161.63 0.00 161.63 AP 00425207 06/15/2022 SILVER&WRIGHT LLP 0.00 1,715.00 1,715.00 AP 00425208 06/15/2022 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 11,406.62 0.00 11,406.62 AP 00425210 06/15/2022 SOCAL OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES 3,047.60 603.36 3,650.96 *** AP 00425211 06/15/2022 SOCAL PPE 0.00 2,448.75 2,448.75 AP 00425212 06/15/2022 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 2,903.00 0.00 2,903.00 AP 00425213 06/15/2022 SOUTH COAST AQMD 431.64 582.65 1,014.29 *** AP 00425217 06/15/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 112,746.74 3,475.32 116,222.06 *** AP 00425218 06/15/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 506.54 0.00 506.54 AP 00425219 06/15/2022 STABILIZER SOLUTIONS INC 1,347.82 0.00 1,347.82 AP 00425220 06/15/2022 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 12,216.08 0.00 12,216.08 AP 00425221 06/15/2022 STANLEY PEST CONTROL 1,130.00 70.00 1,200.00 *** AP 00425222 06/15/2022 SUPERIOR PAVEMENT MARKING INC 35,160.46 0.00 35,160.46 AP 00425223 06/15/2022 TECH 24 COMMERCIAL FOODSERVICE REPAIR INC 504.83 0.00 504.83 AP 00425224 06/15/2022 TIREHUB LLC 2,155.48 0.00 2,155.48 AP 00425225 06/15/2022 UNITED WAY 45.00 0.00 45.00 AP 00425226 06/15/2022 UPS 148.90 0.00 148.90 AP 00425227 06/15/2022 US POSTMASTER 6,600.00 0.00 6,600.00 AP 00425228 06/15/2022 VCA CENTRAL ANIMAL HOSPITAL 50.58 0.00 50.58 AP 00425229 06/15/2022 VELOCITY TRUCK CENTERS 0.00 1,276.04 1,276.04 AP 00425230 06/15/2022 VELOCITY TRUCK CENTERS 329.69 550.20 879.89 *** AP 00425231 06/15/2022 VERIZON 28.19 0.00 28.19 AP 00425232 06/15/2022 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA 0.00 5,655.38 5,655.38 AP 00425233 06/15/2022 VERIZON WIRELESS-LA 5,709.99 0.00 5,709.99 AP 00425234 06/15/2022 VETS CHOICE RADIOLOGY 109.00 0.00 109.00 AP 00425235 06/15/2022 VICTOR MEDICAL COMPANY 872.80 0.00 872.80 AP 00425236 06/15/2022 VICTORIA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 200.00 0.00 200.00 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 9 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page me: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425237 06/15/2022 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY 247.37 0.00 247.37 AP 00425238 06/15/2022 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 40,391.17 381.43 40,772.60 *** AP 00425239 06/15/2022 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 11,263.01 3,283.12 14,546.13 *** AP 00425240 06/15/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 7,196.00 0.00 7,196.00 AP 00425241 06/15/2022 WEST END MATERIAL SUPPLY 246.82 0.00 246.82 AP 00425242 06/15/2022 WESTERN STATES TRANSMISSIONS 2,400.00 0.00 2,400.00 AP 00425243 06/15/2022 WESTRUX INTERNATIONAL INC -511.65 1,240.11 728.46 *** AP 00425244 06/15/2022 WILSON&BELL AUTO SERVICE 503.44 0.00 503.44 AP 00425245 06/15/2022 WINZER CORPORATION 0.00 1,033.25 1,033.25 AP 00425246 06/15/2022 ZEP SALES AND SERVICE 1,734.68 1,131.45 2,866.13 *** AP 00425247 06/15/2022 ZOETIS US LLC 682.98 0.00 682.98 AP 00425248 06/22/2022 9TH&VINEYARD LLC 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00 AP 00425249 06/22/2022 A Y NURSERY INC 2,489.03 0.00 2,489.03 AP 00425250 06/22/2022 ADAPT CONSULTING INC 688.40 0.00 688.40 AP 00425251 06/22/2022 ADVANCED CHEMICAL TRANSPORT INC 193.00 0.00 193.00 AP 00425252 06/22/2022 ALBERTO'S MEXICAN FOOD 286.14 0.00 286.14 AP 00425253 06/22/2022 AM-TEC TOTAL SECURITY INC 7,893.73 0.00 7,893.73 AP 00425254 06/22/2022 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 657.90 0.00 657.90 AP 00425255 06/22/2022 AROCHO,ALMA 869.40 0.00 869.40 AP 00425256 06/22/2022 B&B GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SVCS 327.39 0.00 327.39 AP 00425257 06/22/2022 B Y CONSTRUCTION INC 2,007.20 0.00 2,007.20 AP 00425258 06/22/2022 BAKER,NICK 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 AP 00425259 06/22/2022 BAST,KAROLYN 273.00 0.00 273.00 AP 00425260 06/22/2022 BAY ALARM COMPANY 212.76 0.00 212.76 AP 00425261 06/22/2022 BEST OUTDOOR POWER INLAND LLC 1,167.79 0.00 1,167.79 AP 00425262 06/22/2022 BIT PROS-ESCONDIDO 0.00 300.75 300.75 AP 00425263 06/22/2022 BREWSTER,THELMA 42.82 0.00 42.82 AP 00425264 06/22/2022 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC 13,666.92 0.00 13,666.92 AP 00425265 06/22/2022 BURRIS,MATT 20.00 0.00 20.00 AP 00425267 06/22/2022 C V W D 8,790.94 778.63 9,569.57 *** AP 00425268 06/22/2022 CALIF DEPT OF TAX&FEE ADMINISTRATION 1,356.97 211.37 1,568.34 *** AP 00425269 06/22/2022 CALIF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK AUTHORITY 402,667.00 0.00 402,667.00 AP 00425270 06/22/2022 CAMBRIDGE SEVEN ASSOCIATES INC 25,262.50 0.00 25,262.50 AP 00425271 06/22/2022 CAPTURIS 1,818.03 0.00 1,818.03 AP 00425272 06/22/2022 CASTILLO,JESSIE 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00425273 06/22/2022 CASTONIA,JOHN 8,863.00 0.00 8,863.00 AP 00425274 06/22/2022 CASTONIA,JOHN 8,750.00 0.00 8,750.00 AP 00425275 06/22/2022 CERTIFIED TOWING INC 375.00 0.00 375.00 AP 00425276 06/22/2022 CHASING 7 DREAMS 285.00 0.00 285.00 AP 00425277 06/22/2022 CLARK,KAREN 768.00 0.00 768.00 AP 00425278 06/22/2022 CLASSE PARTY RENTALS 1,440.00 0.00 1,440.00 AP 00425279 06/22/2022 CODE RED HEADSETS 955.80 0.00 955.80 AP 00425280 06/22/2022 CONVERGEONE INC 28,818.67 0.00 28,818.67 AP 00425281 06/22/2022 CORE STRENGTHS INC 1,155.23 0.00 1,155.23 AP 00425282 06/22/2022 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC 64.05 0.00 64.05 AP 00425283 06/22/2022 COX,ELISA 1,211.27 0.00 1,211.27 AP 00425284 06/22/2022 CREATIVE BRAIN LEARNING LLC 346.50 0.00 346.50 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 10 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wine: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425285 06/22/2022 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 10,933.78 435.00 11,368.78 *** AP 00425286 06/22/2022 D&K CONCRETE COMPANY 1,260.68 0.00 1,260.68 AP 00425287 06/22/2022 DAVIS,SAM 279.64 0.00 279.64 AP 00425288 06/22/2022 DEGUZMAN,CLARENCE 20.00 0.00 20.00 AP 00425289 06/22/2022 DELGADO,ADRIAN 1,611.86 0.00 1,611.86 AP 00425290 06/22/2022 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1,071.00 0.00 1,071.00 AP 00425291 06/22/2022 DEPENDABLE COMPANY INC 105.00 0.00 105.00 AP 00425292 06/22/2022 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 220.68 0.00 220.68 AP 00425293 06/22/2022 DOG WASTE DEPOT 594.52 0.00 594.52 AP 00425294 06/22/2022 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 1,576.40 0.00 1,576.40 AP 00425295 06/22/2022 ECOHERO SHOW LLC,THE 275.00 0.00 275.00 AP 00425296 06/22/2022 ECONOLITE CONTROL PRODUCTS INC 24,818.07 0.00 24,818.07 AP 00425297 06/22/2022 ESTRADA,ROGER 250.00 0.00 250.00 AP 00425298 06/22/2022 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 0.00 1,823.31 1,823.31 AP 00425299 06/22/2022 FELICIANO,ANTHONY 99.00 0.00 99.00 AP 00425300 06/22/2022 FIALLOS,WILSON 3,570.00 0.00 3,570.00 AP 00425301 06/22/2022 FIELDMAN ROLAPP&ASSOCIATES 414.00 0.00 414.00 AP 00425302 06/22/2022 FLORES,ANGELICA 68.91 0.00 68.91 AP 00425303 06/22/2022 FONTANA RADIATOR SERVICE 0.00 3,009.00 3,009.00 AP 00425304 06/22/2022 FORTIN LAW GROUP 11,415.35 0.00 11,415.35 AP 00425305 06/22/2022 FRONTIER COMM 787.97 609.47 1,397.44 *** AP 00425306 06/22/2022 FRONTIER COMM 161.17 376.08 537.25 *** AP 00425307 06/22/2022 G/M BUSINESS INTERIORS 172.28 0.00 172.28 AP 00425308 06/22/2022 GILLISON,JOHN 100.00 0.00 100.00 AP 00425309 06/22/2022 GONZALEZ,SHARON 479.54 0.00 479.54 AP 00425310 06/22/2022 GRAINGER 3,536.17 794.21 4,330.38 *** AP 00425311 06/22/2022 GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC 676.85 1,163.70 1,840.55 *** AP 00425312 06/22/2022 HAMILTON,MONIQUE 528.00 0.00 528.00 AP 00425313 06/22/2022 HCI ENVIRONMENTAL&ENGINEERING SVC 816.53 0.00 816.53 AP 00425314 06/22/2022 HENCHEY III,JOSEPH H 933.00 0.00 933.00 AP 00425315 06/22/2022 HLP INC 217.70 0.00 217.70 AP 00425316 06/22/2022 HODNICK,CHRISTOPHER 69.00 0.00 69.00 AP 00425317 06/22/2022 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1,851.66 0.00 1,851.66 AP 00425318 06/22/2022 HOSE-MAN INC 76.29 0.00 76.29 AP 00425319 06/22/2022 HUANG,MENGYING 68.12 0.00 68.12 AP 00425320 06/22/2022 IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC 1,999.67 0.00 1,999.67 AP 00425321 06/22/2022 ITRON INC 8,425.28 0.00 8,425.28 AP 00425322 06/22/2022 JENKINS,GILFORD 81.75 0.00 81.75 AP 00425323 06/22/2022 JOHNNY ALLEN TENNIS ACADEMY 4,148.40 0.00 4,148.40 AP 00425324 06/22/2022 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC 425.00 0.00 425.00 AP 00425325 06/22/2022 KICKS FACTORY INC 747.47 0.00 747.47 AP 00425326 06/22/2022 KOSMONT COMPANIES 4,653.08 0.00 4,653.08 AP 00425327 06/22/2022 LANDREE,STEVEN 25.24 0.00 25.24 AP 00425328 06/22/2022 LANDSCAPE WEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 78,168.81 0.00 78,168.81 AP 00425329 06/22/2022 LIN,TIANCONG 82.30 0.00 82.30 AP 00425330 06/22/2022 LOZANO SMITH LLP 406.00 0.00 406.00 AP 00425331 06/22/2022 MAIN STREET SIGNS 3,227.11 0.00 3,227.11 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 11 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Vine: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425332 06/22/2022 MAPLE LANE GROUP LLC 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00425333 06/22/2022 MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC 82,800.35 0.00 82,800.35 AP 00425334 06/22/2022 MARRUFO,JOANNA 20.00 0.00 20.00 AP 00425335 06/22/2022 MASTERCORP COMMERCIAL SERVICES LLC 969.60 0.00 969.60 AP 00425336 06/22/2022 MCI 34.57 0.00 34.57 AP 00425337 06/22/2022 MIDWEST TAPE 3,573.95 0.00 3,573.95 AP 00425338 06/22/2022 NAPA AUTO PARTS 4.43 193.41 197.84 *** AP 00425339 06/22/2022 NATIONAL UTILITY LOCATORS LLC 1,860.00 0.00 1,860.00 AP 00425340 06/22/2022 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS 5,112.31 0.00 5,112.31 AP 00425341 06/22/2022 NV5 INC 8,011.77 0.00 8,011.77 AP 00425342 06/22/2022 OCC BUILDERS INC 0.00 4,214.12 4,214.12 AP 00425343 06/22/2022 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF CA 1,561.00 0.00 1,561.00 AP 00425344 06/22/2022 ONLY CREMATIONS FOR PETS INC 2,569.00 0.00 2,569.00 AP 00425345 06/22/2022 ONTARIO SPAY&NEUTER INC 412.00 0.00 412.00 AP 00425346 06/22/2022 ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 2,997.50 0.00 2,997.50 AP 00425347 06/22/2022 ONWARD ENGINEERING 12,095.00 0.00 12,095.00 AP 00425348 06/22/2022 OTT,SHARON 498.00 0.00 498.00 AP 00425349 06/22/2022 PARS 3,500.00 0.00 3,500.00 AP 00425350 06/22/2022 PINNACLE PETROLEUM INC 44,216.57 0.00 44,216.57 AP 00425351 06/22/2022 POLLOCK,LARRY 0.00 79.78 79.78 AP 00425352 06/22/2022 PORAC 168.00 0.00 168.00 AP 00425353 06/22/2022 POSTAL PERFECT 210.00 0.00 210.00 AP 00425354 06/22/2022 PSA PRINT GROUP 116.37 0.00 116.37 AP 00425355 06/22/2022 REACH MEDIA NETWORK 800.00 0.00 800.00 AP 00425356 06/22/2022 RIALTO ANIMAL HOSPITAL 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00425357 06/22/2022 SAFE-ENTRY TECHNICAL INC 0.00 425.00 425.00 AP 00425358 06/22/2022 SDI PRESENCE LLC 9,897.50 0.00 9,897.50 AP 00425359 06/22/2022 SHRED PROS 1,053.00 0.00 1,053.00 AP 00425360 06/22/2022 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC 3,362.08 0.00 3,362.08 AP 00425361 06/22/2022 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 83,716.96 0.00 83,716.96 AP 00425363 06/22/2022 SOCAL OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES 1,523.80 301.68 1,825.48 *** AP 00425364 06/22/2022 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 1,170.00 0.00 1,170.00 AP 00425365 06/22/2022 SON,GRACE 89.41 0.00 89.41 AP 00425366 06/22/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13,397.55 0.00 13,397.55 AP 00425367 06/22/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,885.85 0.00 2,885.85 AP 00425368 06/22/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 AP 00425369 06/22/2022 STANLEY PEST CONTROL 2,220.00 810.00 3,030.00 *** AP 00425370 06/22/2022 STAPLETON,JOSHUA 0.00 78.66 78.66 AP 00425371 06/22/2022 STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY&SIGNS INC 3,959.82 0.00 3,959.82 AP 00425372 06/22/2022 STEPPIN OUT BALLROOM 77.00 0.00 77.00 AP 00425373 06/22/2022 STOTZ EQUIPMENT 1,001.56 0.00 1,001.56 AP 00425374 06/22/2022 SUN BADGE CO 0.00 709.60 709.60 AP 00425375 06/22/2022 THE COUNSELING TEAM INTERNATIONAL 0.00 675.00 675.00 AP 00425376 06/22/2022 THOMPSON BUILDING MATERIALS 1,098.85 0.00 1,098.85 AP 00425377 06/22/2022 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 365.00 0.00 365.00 AP 00425378 06/22/2022 TINT CITY WINDOW TINTING 190.00 0.00 190.00 AP 00425379 06/22/2022 TIREHUB LLC 1,149.62 0.00 1,149.62 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 12 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page dine: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425380 06/22/2022 TRIDEN GROUP CORP 10,500.00 0.00 10,500.00 AP 00425381 06/22/2022 TRUELINE CONSTRUCTION&SURFACING INC 2,560.00 0.00 2,560.00 AP 00425382 06/22/2022 UL1NE 254.31 0.00 254.31 AP 00425383 06/22/2022 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 146.95 0.00 146.95 AP 00425384 06/22/2022 UNITY COURIER SERVICE INC 1,268.73 0.00 1,268.73 AP 00425385 06/22/2022 VALLEDOR,JOSEPHINE 1,762.73 0.00 1,762.73 AP 00425386 06/22/2022 VELARDE,HOPE 20.00 0.00 20.00 AP 00425387 06/22/2022 VELOCITY TRUCK CENTERS 0.00 47.83 47.83 AP 00425388 06/22/2022 VIRGIN PULSE INC 1,223.10 0.00 1,223.10 AP 00425389 06/22/2022 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY 366.79 0.00 366.79 AP 00425390 06/22/2022 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 2,411.55 78.61 2,490.16 *** AP 00425391 06/22/2022 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 9,730.39 2,693.38 12,423.77 *** AP 00425392 06/22/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 28,302.05 0.00 28,302.05 AP 00425393 06/22/2022 WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY 3,591.70 0.00 3,591.70 AP 00425394 06/22/2022 WILLDAN GROUP 14,580.00 0.00 14,580.00 AP 00425395 06/22/2022 WILLIAMS,EDDIE 159.12 0.00 159.12 AP 00425396 06/22/2022 WITKE,DOUGLAS 123.24 0.00 123.24 AP 00425397 06/22/2022 ZHANG,DAWEI 64.08 0.00 64.08 AP 00425398 06/22/2022 MAGNUSON,PETER 0.00 2,144.67 2,144.67 AP 00425399 06/22/2022 RODRIGUEZ,VICTOR 0.00 614.88 614.88 AP 00425400 06/22/2022 TOWNSEND,JAMES 0.00 2,095.76 2,095.76 AP 00425401 06/22/2022 WALKER,KENNETH 0.00 232.94 232.94 AP 00425402 06/23/2022 EDDY,MATT 0.00 324.00 324.00 AP 00425403 06/23/2022 PHAIRAS,MATTHEW G 1,200.00 0.00 1,200.00 AP 00425404 06/23/2022 YANCY,MICHELLE 76.05 0.00 76.05 AP 00425405 06/29/2022 49ER COMMUNICATIONS INC 0.00 1,910.84 1,910.84 AP 00425406 06/29/2022 ACTION AWARDS INC 534.10 0.00 534.10 AP 00425407 06/29/2022 ADAPT CONSULTING INC 1,813.61 0.00 1,813.61 AP 00425408 06/29/2022 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 24.58 0.00 24.58 AP 00425409 06/29/2022 AIRGAS USA LLC 1,985.35 0.00 1,985.35 AP 00425410 06/29/2022 ALLIED 100 LLC 0.00 2,175.61 2,175.61 AP 00425411 06/29/2022 ALTA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK 297.59 0.00 297.59 AP 00425412 06/29/2022 BARBARA'S ANSWERING SERVICE 552.00 0.00 552.00 AP 00425413 06/29/2022 BETWEEN THE PORCH&ALTAR 541.20 0.00 541.20 AP 00425414 06/29/2022 BILLS,TRAVIS 0.00 320.00 320.00 AP 00425415 06/29/2022 BISHOP COMPANY 277.84 0.00 277.84 AP 00425416 06/29/2022 BLESSED FARM 1,421.65 0.00 1,421.65 AP 00425417 06/29/2022 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 0.00 2,223.91 2,223.91 AP 00425418 06/29/2022 BROCE,MIGUEL 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 AP 00425422 06/29/2022 C V W D 76,919.70 1,340.44 78,260.14 *** AP 00425423 06/29/2022 CA LLC-ALTA LAGUNA MHP 400.00 0.00 400.00 AP 00425424 06/29/2022 CALIF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK AUTHORITY 7,822.00 0.00 7,822.00 AP 00425425 06/29/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 32.26 0.00 32.26 AP 00425426 06/29/2022 CALIFORNIA,STATE OF 342.73 0.00 342.73 AP 00425427 06/29/2022 CalPERS LONG-TERM CARE PROGRAM 177.08 0.00 177.08 AP 00425428 06/29/2022 CAPITOL ENQUIRY 90.08 0.00 90.08 AP 00425429 06/29/2022 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 82.66 0.00 82.66 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 13 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page ne: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425430 06/29/2022 CASA VOLANTE MOBILE HOME PARK 600.00 0.00 600.00 AP 00425431 06/29/2022 CASTONIA,JOHN 9,800.00 0.00 9,800.00 AP 00425432 06/29/2022 CENTRAL SUPPLY INTERNATIONAL 0.00 7,713.91 7,713.91 AP 00425433 06/29/2022 CHAMPION AWARDS&SPECIALTIES 172.40 0.00 172.40 AP 00425434 06/29/2022 CHAMPION FIRE SYSTEMS INC 2,085.00 0.00 2,085.00 AP 00425435 06/29/2022 CHAPARRAL HEIGHTS MOBILE HOME PARK 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00425436 06/29/2022 CIESZKOWSKI,JEFFREY J 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 AP 00425437 06/29/2022 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 1,216.98 1,056.38 2,273.36 *** AP 00425438 06/29/2022 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK 0.00 14,426.86 14,426.86 AP 00425439 06/29/2022 CITY RENTALS 422.28 0.00 422.28 AP 00425440 06/29/2022 CLIMATEC LLC 10,929.30 0.00 10,929.30 AP 00425441 06/29/2022 COLD DUCK PRODUCTIONS INC 1,300.00 0.00 1,300.00 AP 00425442 06/29/2022 CONSERVE LANDCARE LLC 1,279.65 0.00 1,279.65 AP 00425443 06/29/2022 COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION INC 785.51 0.00 785.51 AP 00425444 06/29/2022 CREATIVE BRAIN LEARNING LLC 1,200.00 0.00 1,200.00 AP 00425445 06/29/2022 D&K CONCRETE COMPANY 1,715.39 0.00 1,715.39 AP 00425446 06/29/2022 D C ELECTRONICS TWO INC 425.52 0.00 425.52 AP 00425447 06/29/2022 DATA TICKET INC 6,406.90 0.00 6,406.90 AP 00425448 06/29/2022 DURANT,CHERYL 545.88 0.00 545.88 AP 00425449 06/29/2022 EAGLE ROAD SERVICE&TIRE 765.45 0.00 765.45 AP 00425450 06/29/2022 ECORP CONSULTING INC 2,091.49 0.00 2,091.49 AP 00425451 06/29/2022 EIGHTH AVENUE ENTERPRISE LLC 25.32 0.00 25.32 AP 00425452 06/29/2022 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC 578.51 0.00 578.51 AP 00425453 06/29/2022 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 73.77 0.00 73.77 AP 00425454 06/29/2022 FITNESS REPAIR SHOP 2,376.71 0.00 2,376.71 AP 00425455 06/29/2022 G/M BUSINESS INTERIORS 192.72 0.00 192.72 AP 00425456 06/29/2022 GENERATOR SERVICES CO INC 8,072.15 6,754.50 14,826.65 *** AP 00425457 06/29/2022 GENTRY BROTHERS INC 62,329.50 0.00 62,329.50 AP 00425458 06/29/2022 GRAINGER 3,507.00 474.73 3,981.73 *** AP 00425459 06/29/2022 GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC 199.34 0.00 199.34 AP 00425460 06/29/2022 GROVES ON FOOTHILL,THE 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00425461 06/29/2022 HAULAWAY STORAGE CONTAINERS INC 239.68 0.00 239.68 AP 00425462 06/29/2022 HCI ENVIRONMENTAL&ENGINEERING SVC 7,500.00 3,700.00 11,200.00 *** AP 00425463 06/29/2022 HENRY,ROBBIE 85.52 0.00 85.52 AP 00425464 06/29/2022 HINCHCLIFFE,CHARLES E 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 AP 00425465 06/29/2022 HOMETOWN AMERICA RAMONA VILLA 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00425466 06/29/2022 HOSE-MAN INC 1,423.28 0.00 1,423.28 AP 00425467 06/29/2022 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC 9,832.00 0.00 9,832.00 AP 00425468 06/29/2022 HUDSON AUDIO WORKS 6,000.00 0.00 6,000.00 AP 00425469 06/29/2022 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY INC 1,962.99 0.00 1,962.99 AP 00425470 06/29/2022 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 0.00 1,231.50 1,231.50 AP 00425471 06/29/2022 INLAND PACIFIC BALLET 12,233.00 0.00 12,233.00 AP 00425472 06/29/2022 INLAND TOPSOIL MIXES 646.50 0.00 646.50 AP 00425473 06/29/2022 INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER 10.75 0.00 10.75 AP 00425474 06/29/2022 KANG,YOUNG W 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 AP 00425475 06/29/2022 KIZH NATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 2,719.67 0.00 2,719.67 AP 00425476 06/29/2022 KME FIRE APPARATUS 0.00 1,131.84 1,131.84 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 14 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wine: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425477 06/29/2022 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC 39,808.69 0.00 39,808.69 AP 00425478 06/29/2022 LIFE-ASSIST INC 0.00 311.29 311.29 AP 00425479 06/29/2022 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 1,590.00 0.00 1,590.00 AP 00425480 06/29/2022 MALLORY SAFETY&SUPPLY LLC 779.17 0.00 779.17 AP 00425481 06/29/2022 MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC 5,873.28 0.00 5,873.28 AP 00425482 06/29/2022 MCCUISTION,MICHAEL 0.00 1,030.00 1,030.00 AP 00425483 06/29/2022 MCFADDEN-DALE HARDWARE 1,014.97 0.00 1,014.97 AP 00425484 06/29/2022 MEDIWASTE DISPOSAL 35.00 0.00 35.00 AP 00425485 06/29/2022 MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC 1,139.56 0.00 1,139.56 AP 00425486 06/29/2022 MELLO,TERRI 350.00 0.00 350.00 AP 00425487 06/29/2022 MINUTEMAN PRESS 0.00 4,381.21 4,381.21 AP 00425488 06/29/2022 MWI ANIMAL HEALTH 877.14 0.00 877.14 AP 00425489 06/29/2022 NAPA AUTO PARTS 58.85 0.00 58.85 AP 00425490 06/29/2022 NATIONAL UTILITY LOCATORS LLC 1,380.00 0.00 1,380.00 AP 00425491 06/29/2022 NEW COLOR SILK SCREEN&GRAPHICS 2,564.45 0.00 2,564.45 AP 00425492 06/29/2022 NINYO&MOORE 13,887.00 5,125.00 19,012.00 *** AP 00425493 06/29/2022 NOVELTY PRINTING 0.00 1,672.42 1,672.42 AP 00425494 06/29/2022 NV51NC 7,187.10 0.00 7,187.10 AP 00425495 06/29/2022 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF CA 192.00 0.00 192.00 AP 00425496 06/29/2022 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 459.07 308.77 767.84 *** AP 00425497 06/29/2022 OLSON,BUZZ 0.00 324.00 324.00 AP 00425498 06/29/2022 ONTARIO SPAY&NEUTER INC 385.00 0.00 385.00 AP 00425499 06/29/2022 ONYX PAVING COMPANY INC 79,339.25 0.00 79,339.25 AP 00425500 06/29/2022 OROZCO,JOE 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00425501 06/29/2022 PAPE GROUP INC,THE 741.54 0.00 741.54 AP 00425502 06/29/2022 PH&S PRODUCTS LLC 0.00 7,449.25 7,449.25 AP 00425503 06/29/2022 PINNACLE PETROLEUM INC 3,771.50 0.00 3,771.50 AP 00425504 06/29/2022 PLACEWORKS 367.20 0.00 367.20 AP 00425505 06/29/2022 PORCHIA,DENISHA 250.00 0.00 250.00 AP 00425506 06/29/2022 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 53.36 0.00 53.36 AP 00425507 06/29/2022 PRIME GLASS 364.76 0.00 364.76 AP 00425508 06/29/2022 PRISTINE UNIFORMS LLC 0.00 1,912.49 1,912.49 AP 00425509 06/29/2022 PYRO SPECTACULARS INC 35,797.00 0.00 35,797.00 AP 00425510 06/29/2022 QUADIENT INC 713.03 0.00 713.03 AP 00425511 06/29/2022 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TOWN SQUARE 15,181.18 0.00 15,181.18 AP 00425512 06/29/2022 RANCHO SMOG CENTER 224.75 0.00 224.75 AP 00425513 06/29/2022 SAN BERNARDINO CO AUDITOR CONT 6,832.50 0.00 6,832.50 AP 00425514 06/29/2022 SAN BERNARDINO CTY TAX COLLECTOR 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00425515 06/29/2022 SASSOON,LORI 1,398.60 0.00 1,398.60 AP 00425516 06/29/2022 SBPEA 2,312.22 0.00 2,312.22 AP 00425517 06/29/2022 SETH,RALPH M. 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00425518 06/29/2022 SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION 355.95 0.00 355.95 AP 00425519 06/29/2022 SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION 0.00 180.15 180.15 AP 00425520 06/29/2022 SHRED PROS 175.00 99.00 274.00 *** AP 00425521 06/29/2022 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC 630.84 0.00 630.84 AP 00425522 06/29/2022 SILVER&WRIGHT LLP 0.00 220.50 220.50 AP 00425523 06/29/2022 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 4,676.48 0.00 4,676.48 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 15 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wine: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425524 06/29/2022 SMG/RC PREMIER FOOD SERVICES LLC 2,644.60 0.00 2,644.60 AP 00425527 06/29/2022 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 2,903.00 0.00 2,903.00 AP 00425528 06/29/2022 SONSRAY MACHINERY LLC 7,555.42 0.00 7,555.42 AP 00425529 06/29/2022 SOUTH COAST AQMD 440.15 0.00 440.15 AP 00425530 06/29/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20,250.00 0.00 20,250.00 AP 00425534 06/29/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19,053.17 1,966.96 21,020.13 *** AP 00425535 06/29/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6,750.00 0.00 6,750.00 AP 00425536 06/29/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20,250.00 0.00 20,250.00 AP 00425537 06/29/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6,750.00 0.00 6,750.00 AP 00425538 06/29/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13,500.00 0.00 13,500.00 AP 00425539 06/29/2022 SOWLES,JULIE 449.18 0.00 449.18 AP 00425540 06/29/2022 SPROUT SOCIAL INC 8,640.00 0.00 8,640.00 AP 00425541 06/29/2022 STABILIZER SOLUTIONS INC 868.50 0.00 868.50 AP 00425542 06/29/2022 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 3,062.73 0.00 3,062.73 AP 00425543 06/29/2022 STANLEY PEST CONTROL 70.00 0.00 70.00 AP 00425544 06/29/2022 STOVER SEED COMPANY 978.53 0.00 978.53 AP 00425545 06/29/2022 SYCAMORE VILLA MOBILE HOME PARK 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00425546 06/29/2022 TELEFLEX LLC 0.00 700.38 700.38 AP 00425547 06/29/2022 TIANA SANCHEZ INTERNATIONAL LLC 8,000.00 0.00 8,000.00 AP 00425548 06/29/2022 TILTON CONSTRUCTION 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 AP 00425549 06/29/2022 TIREHUB LLC 1,602.91 0.00 1,602.91 AP 00425550 06/29/2022 TORO TOWING 150.00 0.00 150.00 AP 00425552 06/29/2022 U.S.BANK PARS ACCT#6746022500 1,014.89 0.00 1,014.89 AP 00425555 06/29/2022 U.S.BANK PARS ACCT#6746022500 18,617.67 0.00 18,617.67 AP 00425556 06/29/2022 U.S.BANK PARS ACCT#6746022500 1,014.89 0.00 1,014.89 AP 00425557 06/29/2022 U.S.BANK PARS ACCT#6745033700 6,605.00 0.00 6,605.00 AP 00425558 06/29/2022 U.S.BANK PARS ACCT#6745033700 6,605.00 0.00 6,605.00 AP 00425559 06/29/2022 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC 323.57 0.00 323.57 AP 00425560 06/29/2022 UNITED WAY 45.00 0.00 45.00 AP 00425561 06/29/2022 UPLAND AUTO TRIM 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00425562 06/29/2022 UPS 54.01 0.00 54.01 AP 00425563 06/29/2022 US POSTMASTER 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 AP 00425564 06/29/2022 VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES INC 4,000.00 0.00 4,000.00 AP 00425565 06/29/2022 VELOCITY TRUCK CENTERS 0.00 3,150.00 3,150.00 AP 00425566 06/29/2022 VERIZON BUSINESS 42.37 0.00 42.37 AP 00425567 06/29/2022 VISTA PAINT 1,582.63 0.00 1,582.63 AP 00425568 06/29/2022 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY 415.66 0.00 415.66 AP 00425569 06/29/2022 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 1,026.82 0.00 1,026.82 AP 00425570 06/29/2022 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 1,475.23 0.00 1,475.23 AP 00425571 06/29/2022 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 500.28 0.00 500.28 AP 00425572 06/29/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 1,085.70 0.00 1,085.70 AP 00425573 06/29/2022 WEST COAST SAND AND GRAVEL INC 1,406.60 0.00 1,406.60 AP 00425574 06/29/2022 WHITTIER FERTILIZER 1,718.61 0.00 1,718.61 AP 00425575 06/29/2022 WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY 7,060.63 0.00 7,060.63 AP 00425576 06/29/2022 WILSON&BELL AUTO SERVICE 1,215.39 0.00 1,215.39 AP 00425577 06/30/2022 BLUE MAPLE CONSTRUCTION 9,575.00 0.00 9,575.00 AP 00425578 07/06/2022 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 3,615.63 0.00 3,615.63 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 16 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Wine: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425579 07/06/2022 ALTA LOMA ANIMAL CLINIC INC 61,800.00 0.00 61,800.00 AP 00425580 07/06/2022 CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP 36,534.23 0.00 36,534.23 AP 00425581 07/06/2022 ENVISIONWARE INC 2,285.80 0.00 2,285.80 AP 00425582 07/06/2022 GONSALVES&SON,JOE A 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 AP 00425583 07/06/2022 HITNER,MARA 1,300.00 0.00 1,300.00 AP 00425584 07/06/2022 INNOVATIVE INTERFACES INC 19,635.01 0.00 19,635.01 AP 00425585 07/06/2022 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC 241,918.73 0.00 241,918.73 AP 00425586 07/06/2022 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 900.00 0.00 900.00 AP 00425587 07/06/2022 MOBILE CITIZEN LLC 2,400.00 0.00 2,400.00 AP 00425588 07/06/2022 SOUTH COAST AQMD 0.00 937.52 937.52 AP 00425589 07/06/2022 TAHA,MOHAMMAD 450.00 0.00 450.00 AP 00425590 07/06/2022 TUMBLEWEED PRESS INC 978.60 0.00 978.60 AP 00425591 07/06/2022 ABC LOCKSMITHS INC 179.39 0.00 179.39 AP 00425592 07/06/2022 ALL WELDING 495.00 0.00 495.00 AP 00425593 07/06/2022 ALLERGY&ASTHMA CENTER INC 990.70 0.00 990.70 AP 00425594 07/06/2022 AMS PLANNING&RESEARCH CORP 3,500.00 0.00 3,500.00 AP 00425595 07/06/2022 ARMADA TOWING SERVICE 900.00 0.00 900.00 AP 00425596 07/06/2022 BARTEL ASSOCIATES LLC 0.00 3,856.00 3,856.00 AP 00425597 07/06/2022 BAY ALARM COMPANY 108.00 0.00 108.00 AP 00425598 07/06/2022 BENMEX INTERNATIONAL INC 456.35 0.00 456.35 AP 00425599 07/06/2022 BEST OUTDOOR POWER INLAND LLC 571.06 0.00 571.06 AP 00425600 07/06/2022 BISHOP COMPANY 327.52 0.00 327.52 AP 00425601 07/06/2022 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 0.00 2,083.92 2,083.92 AP 00425602 07/06/2022 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC 20,553.34 0.00 20,553.34 AP 00425603 07/06/2022 BSN SPORTS LLC 817.35 0.00 817.35 AP 00425604 07/06/2022 CAPITOL ENQUIRY 61.46 0.00 61.46 AP 00425605 07/06/2022 CHAMPION FIRE SYSTEMS INC 0.00 3,046.51 3,046.51 AP 00425606 07/06/2022 CHANNEY,DALVEER 33.01 0.00 33.01 AP 00425607 07/06/2022 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 4,492.75 6,460.22 10,952.97 *** AP 00425608 07/06/2022 CHINO MOWER&EQUIPMENT 0.00 499.96 499.96 AP 00425609 07/06/2022 CHOU,CINDY 82.01 0.00 82.01 AP 00425610 07/06/2022 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 1,493.06 159.67 1,652.73 *** AP 00425611 07/06/2022 COCO'S RESTAURANT#218 154.93 0.00 154.93 AP 00425612 07/06/2022 COMMUNITY WORKS DESIGN GROUP 251.50 0.00 251.50 AP 00425613 07/06/2022 CONCEPT POWDER COATING 890.00 0.00 890.00 AP 00425614 07/06/2022 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC 100.00 0.00 100.00 AP 00425615 07/06/2022 CUMMINS SALES&SERVICE 3,033.51 0.00 3,033.51 AP 00425616 07/06/2022 D&K CONCRETE COMPANY 1,138.97 0.00 1,138.97 AP 00425617 07/06/2022 D'ALESIO GROUP INC 0.00 668.60 668.60 AP 00425618 07/06/2022 DIRECTV 200.48 0.00 200.48 AP 00425619 07/06/2022 DOG WASTE DEPOT 594.52 0.00 594.52 AP 00425620 07/06/2022 FAIRVIEW FORD INC 58,190.79 0.00 58,190.79 AP 00425621 07/06/2022 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 77.00 0.00 77.00 AP 00425622 07/06/2022 FITNESS REPAIR SHOP 299.00 0.00 299.00 AP 00425623 07/06/2022 FLIEGEL,STACY 60.00 0.00 60.00 AP 00425624 07/06/2022 FUEL SERV 417.75 13,560.24 13,977.99 *** AP 00425625 07/06/2022 G/M BUSINESS INTERIORS 139.25 0.00 139.25 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 17 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Elle: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425626 07/06/2022 GENERATOR SERVICES CO INC 5,749.61 878.90 6,628.51 *** AP 00425627 07/06/2022 GOLDEN SUN ENTERPRISE INC 431,214.50 0.00 431,214.50 AP 00425628 07/06/2022 GRAINGER 663.29 0.00 663.29 AP 00425629 07/06/2022 HARJO,JAMIE 53.16 0.00 53.16 AP 00425630 07/06/2022 HD PRODUCTIONS INC 1,080.00 0.00 1,080.00 AP 00425631 07/06/2022 HENSLEY,JENNIFER 127.00 0.00 127.00 AP 00425632 07/06/2022 HERITAGE WELLNESS COLLECTIVE 2,051.00 0.00 2,051.00 AP 00425633 07/06/2022 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 2,280.33 0.00 2,280.33 AP 00425634 07/06/2022 HSU,BRANDON 43.77 0.00 43.77 AP 00425635 07/06/2022 INLAND DESERT SECURITY&COMMUNICATIONS INC 36.95 0.00 36.95 AP 00425636 07/06/2022 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 0.00 455.00 455.00 AP 00425637 07/06/2022 KELLEY.VERBON 250.00 0.00 250.00 AP 00425638 07/06/2022 LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS 2,071.87 0.00 2,071.87 AP 00425639 07/06/2022 LANDSCAPE WEST MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC 23,673.72 0.00 23,673.72 AP 00425640 07/06/2022 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC 0.00 2,140.60 2,140.60 AP 00425641 07/06/2022 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1,621.10 325.00 1,946.10 *** AP 00425642 07/06/2022 LIFE-ASSIST INC 0.00 98.53 98.53 AP 00425643 07/06/2022 LOZANO SMITH LLP 5,939.13 0.00 5,939.13 AP 00425644 07/06/2022 MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC 14,207.80 0.00 14,207.80 AP 00425645 07/06/2022 MARTINEZ,ALEC 1,155.86 0.00 1,155.86 AP 00425646 07/06/2022 MATLOCK DESIGN BUILD INC 3,235.00 0.00 3,235.00 AP 00425647 07/06/2022 MG PETROLEUM INC 604.00 0.00 604.00 AP 00425650 07/06/2022 MIDWEST TAPE 7,937.46 0.00 7,937.46 AP 00425651 07/06/2022 MINUTEMAN PRESS 299.80 0.00 299.80 AP 00425652 07/06/2022 MOLINA,GINA 0.00 142.39 142.39 AP 00425653 07/06/2022 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES INC 0.00 3,179.83 3,179.83 AP 00425654 07/06/2022 MWI ANIMAL HEALTH 2,596.53 0.00 2,596.53 AP 00425655 07/06/2022 NAPA AUTO PARTS 487.76 0.00 487.76 AP 00425656 07/06/2022 NEIUBER,ROBERT 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00425657 07/06/2022 NEW COLOR SILK SCREEN&GRAPHICS 52.80 0.00 52.80 AP 00425658 07/06/2022 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS 7,016.52 0.00 7,016.52 AP 00425660 07/06/2022 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 9,096.61 612.76 9,709.37 *** AP 00425661 07/06/2022 ONYX PAVING COMPANY INC 106,930.10 0.00 106,930.10 AP 00425662 07/06/2022 PACIFIC TRUCK EQUIPMENT 5,160.57 0.00 5,160.57 AP 00425663 07/06/2022 PACIFIC UTILITY INSTALLATION INC 3,383.00 0.00 3,383.00 AP 00425664 07/06/2022 PINNACLE PETROLEUM INC 48,332.62 29,841.41 78,174.03 *** AP 00425665 07/06/2022 PSA PRINT GROUP 193.95 0.00 193.95 AP 00425666 07/06/2022 RANCHO MALL 167.23 0.00 167.23 AP 00425667 07/06/2022 RANCHO REGIONAL VETERINARY HOSPITAL INC 2,805.65 0.00 2,805.65 AP 00425668 07/06/2022 RANCHO SMOG CENTER 44.95 0.00 44.95 AP 00425669 07/06/2022 RBM LOCK&KEY SERVICE 26.94 0.00 26.94 AP 00425670 07/06/2022 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC 1,347.30 0.00 1,347.30 AP 00425671 07/06/2022 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 350.80 0.00 350.80 AP 00425672 07/06/2022 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FIRE CHIEF ASSOC 0.00 162.00 162.00 AP 00425673 07/06/2022 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT 414.45 0.00 414.45 AP 00425674 07/06/2022 SHOETERIA INC 1,302.58 0.00 1,302.58 AP 00425675 07/06/2022 SHRED PROS 128.00 0.00 128.00 User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 18 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page Ine: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425676 07/06/2022 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 8,443.92 0.00 8,443.92 AP 00425677 07/06/2022 SMG/RC PREMIER FOOD SERVICES LLC 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 AP 00425678 07/06/2022 SMG/RC PREMIER FOOD SERVICES LLC 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 AP 00425680 07/06/2022 SOCAL OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES 831.97 0.00 831.97 AP 00425681 07/06/2022 SOUTH COAST AQMD 0.00 151.85 151.85 AP 00425682 07/06/2022 SOUTH COAST AQMD 581.36 0.00 581.36 AP 00425683 07/06/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE INC 9,020.48 0.00 9,020.48 AP 00425684 07/06/2022 SPECIAL SERVICES GROUP LLC 746.17 0.00 746.17 AP 00425685 07/06/2022 SUBRO CLAIMS INC 5,718.92 0.00 5,718.92 AP 00425686 07/06/2022 TECH 24 COMMERCIAL FOODSERVICE REPAIR INC 380.61 0.00 380.61 AP 00425687 07/06/2022 TELEFLEX LLC 0.00 1,847.25 1,847.25 AP 00425688 07/06/2022 THOMPSON PLUMBING SUPPLY INC 49.94 0.00 49.94 AP 00425689 07/06/2022 TIPPETT,AMY 127.00 0.00 127.00 AP 00425690 07/06/2022 TIREHUB LLC 557.12 0.00 557.12 AP 00425691 07/06/2022 VALENZUELA,JOHN 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00425692 07/06/2022 C V W D 224.57 0.00 224.57 AP 00425693 07/06/2022 C V W D 124.12 289.65 413.77 *** AP 00425701 07/06/2022 C V W D 170,251.47 434.27 170,685.74 *** AP 00425702 07/06/2022 FRONTIER COMM 2,296.55 568.50 2,865.05 *** AP 00425704 07/06/2022 LOWES COMPANIES INC 3,189.04 3,452.44 6,641.48 *** AP 00425706 07/06/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 31,212.71 135.44 31,348.15 *** AP 00425707 07/06/2022 U.S.BANK PARS ACCT#6746022500 5,156.13 0.00 5,156.13 AP 00425708 07/06/2022 UPLAND ANIMAL HOSPITAL 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00425709 07/06/2022 UTILITY FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS 21,500.00 0.00 21,500.00 AP 00425710 07/06/2022 VICTOR MEDICAL COMPANY 5,456.64 0.00 5,456.64 AP 00425711 07/06/2022 VICTORIA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00425712 07/06/2022 VINYL MAYHEM 129.30 0.00 129.30 AP 00425713 07/06/2022 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 1,917.92 0.00 1,917.92 AP 00425714 07/06/2022 WESTBOUND COMMUNICATIONS INC 34,475.95 0.00 34,475.95 AP 00425715 07/06/2022 WILLDAN GROUP 7,030.00 0.00 7,030.00 AP 00425716 07/06/2022 WILSON&BELL AUTO SERVICE 3,322.12 0.00 3,322.12 AP 00425717 07/06/2022 YIN,GUGHUI 33.55 0.00 33.55 AP 00425718 07/06/2022 YU,MRS 99.00 0.00 99.00 AP 00425719 07/06/2022 ZHOU,QIANHUI 0.30 0.00 0.30 Total City: $7,454,288.90 Total Fire: $1,359,685.72 Grand Total: S8,813,974.62 Note: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 19 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page me: 08:13:06 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Electronic Debit Register JUNE 1, 2022 TO JUNE 30, 2022 DATE DESCRIPTION CITY FIRE AMOUNT 6/1 U.S.BANK-Purchasing Card,Corporate Card and Costco Card Payment 109,643.07 44,646.81 154,289.88 6/1 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 435.97 435.97 6/1 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 1,220.12 1,220.12 6/2 Bank Fee 103.95 103.95 6/2 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 65,318.73 65,318.73 6/2 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 99,884.12 99,884.12 6/2 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT-Child Support Payments 3,534.45 3,534.45 6/2 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT-Child Support Payments 1,732.50 1,732.50 6/2 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 151.87 151.87 6/2 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 2,616.52 2,616.52 6/3 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 3,496.17 3,496.17 6/3 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 5,309.40 5,309.40 6/3 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 10,234.71 10,234.71 6/3 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 36,508.13 36,508.13 6/3 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 94,690.76 94,690.76 6/3 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 443.31 443.31 6/6 WIRE PAYMENT-RCMU CAISO 44,559.65 44,559.65 6/6 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 787.96 787.96 6/7 WIRE PAYMENT-DEPOSIT FOR LAND PURCHASE 10,000.00 10,000.00 6/7 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 107.76 107.76 6/7 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 1,068.88 1,068.88 6/8 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 667.00 667.00 6/8 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 381.30 381.30 6/9 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 247.72 247.72 6/9 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 881.11 881.11 6/10 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 664.39 664.39 6/10 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 128.70 128.70 6/13 WIRE PAYMENT-RCMU CAISO 24,701.41 24,701.41 6/13 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 16.29 16.29 6/13 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 2,279.97 2,279.97 6/14 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 804.21 804.21 6/14 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 1,513.13 1,513.13 6/15 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 516.94 516.94 6/15 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 2,678.36 2,678.36 6/16 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT-Child Support Payments 3,534.45 3,534.45 6/16 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT-Child Support Payments 1,584.50 1,584.50 6/16 WIRE PAYMENT-CALPERS FIRE 3,618,000.00 3,618,000.00 6/16 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 595.85 595.85 6/17 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 484.18 484.18 6/21 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 182,472.25 182,472.25 6/21 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 62,965.80 62,965.80 6/21 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 98,658.26 98,658.26 6/21 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 2,758.74 2,758.74 6/21 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 3,496.17 3,496.17 6/21 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 5,511.25 5,511.25 6/21 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 10,234.71 10,234.71 6/21 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 36,468.20 36,468.20 6/21 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 94,803.91 94,803.91 6/21 WIRE PAYMENT-RCMU CAISO 163,629.14 163,629.14 6/21 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 151.58 151.58 6/22 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 4,330.38 4,330.38 6/22 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 2,652.65 2,652.65 6/23 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 978.22 978.22 6/23 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 3,304.80 3,304.80 6/24 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 1,512.23 1,512.23 6/27 WIRE PAYMENT-RCMU CAISO 20,784.27 20,784.27 6/27 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 1,651.94 1,651.94 6/28 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 777.93 777.93 6/28 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 63,974.06 63,974.06 Page 40 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Electronic Debit Register JUNE 1,2022 TO JUNE 30,2022 DATE DESCRIPTION CITY FIRE AMOUNT 6/28 CALPERS-City-Retirement Account Deposit 99,901.56 99,901.56 6/28 WIRE PAYMENT-BOND DEFEASANCE 2,603,332.95 2,603,332.95 6/28 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 656.70 656.70 6/28 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 1,642.90 1,642.90 6/29 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 1,441.85 1,441.85 6/29 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 3,496.17 3,496.17 6/29 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 5,306.71 5,306.71 6/29 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 10,234.71 10,234.71 6/29 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 36,469.25 36,469.25 6/29 CALPERS-Fire-Retirement Account Deposit 93,475.52 93,475.52 6/29 Workers Comp-City Account Transfer 706.94 706.94 6/29 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 553.48 553.48 6/30 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT-Child Support Payments 3,534.45 3,534.45 6/30 Workers Comp-Fire Account Transfer 7.82 7.82 TOTAL CITY 3,482,775.83 TOTAL FIRE 4,335,276.02 GRAND TOTAL 7,818,051.85 2 Page 41 cep cUCq� NONOR w on 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .' (w) FIRE DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of$27,910.10 Dated June 06, 2022, Through July 10, 2022. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Weekly check register amounts are $26,323.79 and $1,586.31 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register Page 42 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT So Calif Gas Company Only. Agenda Check Register 6/6/2022 through 7/10/2022 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name C Fire Amount AP 00425059 06/08/2022 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 1,765.72 183.57 1,949.29 *** AP 00425209 06/15/2022 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 1,288.90 0.00 1,288.90 AP 00425362 06/22/2022 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 0.00 201.47 201.47 AP 00425525 06/29/2022 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 20,932.36 911.70 21,844.06 *** AP 00425526 06/29/2022 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 1,298.66 0.00 1,298.66 AP 00425679 07/06/2022 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 1,038.15 289.57 1,327.72 *** Total City: $26,323.79 Total Fire: $1,586.31 Grand Total: $27,910.10 Note: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures User: VLOPEZ-Veronica Lopez Page: 1 Current Date: 07/11/2022 Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED-CK:Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Page fine: 08:15:21 cop GUGAil f NONOR 0/!I ncl CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 4E FIRE DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Lori E. Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director Jason A. Shields, Management Analyst II SUBJECT: Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of June 30, 2022 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District receive and file the attached current investment schedules for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (District) as of June 30, 2022. BACKGROUND: The attached investment schedules as of June 30, 2022 reflect cash and investments managed by the Finance Department/Revenue Management Division and are in conformity with the requirements of California Government Code Section 53601 and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District's adopted Investment Policies as approved on June 16, 2022. ANALYSIS: The City's and District's Treasurers are each required to submit a quarterly investment report to the City Council and the Fire Board, respectively, in accordance with California Government Code Section 53646. The quarterly investment report is required to be submitted within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. However, the City and District Treasurers have each elected to provide this report on a monthly basis. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The monthly investment schedule supports the City Council's core value of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all by demonstrating the active, prudent fiscal management of the City's investment portfolio to ensure that financial resources are available to support the various services the city provides to all Rancho Cucamonga stakeholders. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Investment Schedule (City) Attachment 2 - Investment Schedule (Fire) Page 44 City of Rancho Cucamonga Portfolio Summary RANCHO June 30, 2022 CUCAMONGA Cash Dividends Closing Portfolio Holdings and Income Market Value PFM Managed Account $ 69,902.57 $ 308,311,921.22 PFM Cash Balance - 3,226,491.62 State Pool - 74,183,890.49 Passbook/Checking Accounts - 2,252,575.56 Total $ 69,902.57 $ 387,974,878.89 I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in conformity with the investment policy adopted June 16, 2022. A copy of the investment policy is available in the Finance Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months'estimated expenditures. The attached Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents is provided under the City's official Investment Policy. The provisions of the individual bond documents govern the management of these funds. N�rrFin , 4Z 7// /zz Jim gton, Treasurer Date ATTACHMENT 1     Page 45 pfml asset management Account Statement Consolidated Summary Statement For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Portfolio Summary Investment Allocation Cash Dividends Closing Portfolio Holdings and Income Market Value Investment Type Closing Market Value Percent PFMAM Managed Account 69,902.57 308,311,921.22 Asset-Backed Security 11,046,876.47 2.87 Local Agency Investment Fund 0.00 74,183,890.49 Federal Agency Bond/ Note 36,429,194.84 9.47 Passbook/Checking Accounts 0.00 2,252,575.56 Corporate Note 55,973,715.87 14.55 Certificate of Deposit 2,970,576.34 0.77 Total $69,902.57 $384,748,387.27 Certificate of Deposit- FDIC Insured 1,172,079.77 0.30 Municipal Bond/ Note 990,460.00 0.26 Supra-National Agency Bond/ Note 6,357,651.45 1.65 U.S.Treasury Bond/ Note 193,371,366.48 50.26 Local Agency Investment Fund 74,183,890.49 19.28 Passbook/Checking Accounts 2,252,575.56 0.59 Total $384,748,387.27 100.00% Maturity Distribution(Fixed Income Holdings) Sector Allocation Portfolio Holdings Closing Market Value Percent ABS Passbook/Checking 2.87°/o Under 30 days 76,436,466.05 19.87 Accounts - Fed Agy Bond/ 31 to 60 days 499 945.00 0.13 0.59% Note Local Agency 9.470/0 61 to 90 days 0.00 0.00 Investment Fund Corporate Note 91 to 180 days 0.00 0.00 19.28% 14.55% 181 days to 1 year 27,667,816.67 7.19 Cert of Deposit 0.77% 1 to 2 years 80 572 278.28 20.94 2 to 3 years 74,008,461.30 19.24 �- Cert of Deposit 3 to 4 years 77,681,684.25 20.19 0.30% 4 to 5 years 47,881,735.72 12.44 0 26/Bond/Note Over 5 years 0.00 0.00 Supra-National Agency Bond/Note Total $384,748,387.27 100.00% US TSY Bond/Note 1.65% 50.26% Weighted Average Days to Maturity 764 PFM Asset Management LLC Summary Page 1 Page 46 pfml asset management Managed Account Summary Statement For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Transaction Summary-Managed Account Cash Transactions Summary- Managed Account Opening Market Value $297,212,073.64 Maturities/Calls 0.00 Maturities/Calls (15,095.58) Sale Proceeds 6,237,266.39 Principal Dispositions (6,217,485.19) Coupon/Interest/Dividend Income 147,486.66 Principal Acquisitions 19,789,086.72 Principal Payments 15,095.58 Unsettled Trades 0.00 Security Purchases (19,843,525.37) Change in Current Value (2,456,658.37) Net Cash Contribution 16,417,764.99 Reconciling Transactions 0.00 Closing Market Value $308,311,921.22 Earnings Reconciliation(Cash Basis)- Managed Account Cash Balance Interest/Dividends/Coupons Received 167,267.86 Closing Cash Balance $3,226,491.62 Less Purchased Interest Related to Interest/Coupons (54,438.65) Plus Net Realized Gains/Losses (42,926.64) Total Cash Basis Earnings $69,902.57 Earnings Reconciliation(Accrual Basis) Total Ending Amortized Value of Securities 323,256,521.85 Ending Accrued Interest 910,771.58 Plus Proceeds from Sales 6,237,266.39 Plus Proceeds of Maturities/Calls/Principal Payments 15,095.58 Plus Coupons/Dividends Received 147,486.66 Less Cost of New Purchases (19,843,525.37) Less Beginning Amortized Value of Securities (309,764,531.73) Less Beginning Accrued Interest (708,409.87) Total Accrual Basis Earnings $250,675.09 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 1 Page 47 pfml asset management Portfolio Summary and Statistics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Account Summary Sector Allocation Description Par Value Market Value Percent U.S.Treasury Bond/ Note 202,405,000.00 193,371,366.48 62.73 ABS 3.58°/o Supra-National Agency Bond/ Note 6,665,000.00 6,357,651.45 2.06 Cert of Deposit Municipal Bond/ Note 1,000,000.00 990,460.00 0.32 % 0.96% Federal Agency Bond/ Note 38,745,000.00 36,429,194.84 11.82 % All Cert of Deposit 0.38/o Corporate Note 58,860,000.00 55,973,715.87 18.15 °FDIC Certificate of Deposit- FDIC Insured 1,225,000.00 1,172,079.77 0.38 Corporate Note Certificate of Deposit 3,000,000.00 2,970,576.34 0.96 18.15°%° Asset-Backed Security 11,493,054.31 11,046,876.47 3.58 Fed Agy Bond/ Managed Account Sub-Total 323,393,054.31 308,311,921.22 100.00% Note '11141V 11.8z°i° Accrued Interest 910,771.58 iikMuni Bond/Note Total Portfolio 323,393,054.31 309,222,692.80 0.32% Supra-National Agency Bond/Note Unsettled Trades 0.00 0.00 US TSY Bond/Note 2.06% 62.73% Maturity Distribution Characteristics 26.13% 25.20% Yield to Maturity at Cost 1.09% 24.00% Yield to Maturity at Market 3.11% Weighted Average Days to Maturity 953 15.53% 8.97% 0.17% 0.00% 0-6 Months 6-12 Months 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years Over 5 Years PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 2 Page 48 pfml asset management Managed Account Issuer Summary For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Issuer Summary Credit Quality(S&P Ratings) Market Value Issuer of Holdings Percent A AMAZON.COM INC 1,383,216.12 0.45 NR 4.54% AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 1,680,205.20 0.54 1.22% - A+ AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE 1,800,960.00 0.58 BBB+ ♦ 1.56% APPLE INC 2,994,594.00 0.98 1.56 A A- APPLE ASTRAZENECA PLC 1,511,422.85 0.49 4.80 0 � A 1+/0 BANK OF AMERICA CO 1,938,664.00 0.63 M- • 0.96% BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA LLC 485,776.33 0.16 2.68% \ AA CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP 1,763,378.57 0.57 1.39% CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 2,373,461.42 0.77 CATERPILLAR INC 1,802,714.00 0.58 CHARLES SCHWAB 2,495,981.86 0.81 CHIPPEWA VALLEY BANK 225,053.82 0.07 CITIGROUP INC 1,390,591.50 0.45 DEERE&COMPANY 1,823,216.00 0.59 M+ 75.84% ENERBANK USA 232,148.53 0.08 FANNIE MAE 25,252,252.44 8.20 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 2,777,211.00 0.90 FREDDIE MAC 8,399,731.40 2.73 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP 1,595,460.80 0.52 GM FINANCIAL CONSUMER AUTOMOBILE TRUST 911,049.68 0.30 GM FINANCIAL LEASINGTRUST 501,956.54 0.16 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 1,728,798.60 0.56 HOME DEPOT INC 1,922,954.00 0.62 HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 1,229,353.56 0.40 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL 1,421,016.00 0.46 HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 1,987,082.00 0.64 HYUNDAI AUTO LEASE SECURITIZATION TRUST 273,387.46 0.09 HYUNDAI AUTO RECEIVABLES 1,979,102.47 0.64 IBM CORP 1,634,590.63 0.53 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 4,999,869.39 1.63 INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV 1,357,782.06 0.44 JP MORGAN CHASE&CO 2,613,003.62 0.85 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 3 Page 49 pfml asset management Managed Account Issuer Summary For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Market Value Issuer of Holdings Percent KUBOTA CREDIT OWNER TRUST 871,096.90 0.28 MEDALLION BANK UTAH 225,380.65 0.07 MERCEDES-BENZ AUTO LEASE TRUST 161,252.01 0.05 MORGAN STANLEY 1,641,358.37 0.53 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD 2,958,330.00 0.96 NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES CO FINANCE CORP 442,468.40 0.14 NORTHERN TRUST 1,603,383.32 0.52 NOVARTIS AG 2,892,852.00 0.94 Roche Holding AG 2,910,026.75 0.94 SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 990,460.00 0.32 STATE STREET CORPORATION 2,214,047.01 0.72 TARGET CORP 328,686.34 0.11 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION 1,516,435.97 0.49 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK 2,970,576.34 0.96 TOYOTA MOTOR CORP 998,657.01 0.32 TRUIST FIN CORP 1,888,311.60 0.61 UNILEVER PLC 414,890.96 0.13 UNITED STATES TREASURY 193,371,366.48 62.73 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 1,798,398.00 0.58 US BANCORP 2,400,335.00 0.78 VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA 982,837.86 0.32 WELLS FARGO&COMPANY 244,784.40 0.08 Total $308,311,921.22 100.00% PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 4 Page 50 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 9128284A5 1,810,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/16/20 11/18/20 1,910,257.03 0.19 15,880.54 1,839,161.30 1,808,868.75 DTD 02/28/2018 2.625%02/28/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828P79 4,250,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/25/21 01/26/21 4,371,523.44 0.13 21,307.74 4,288,543.48 4,214,804.90 DTD 02/29/2016 1.500%02/28/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZD5 3,450,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/30/20 11/05/20 3,477,357.42 0.16 5,062.50 3,458,175.42 3,395,554.86 DTD 03/15/2020 0.500%03/15/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 9128284L1 5,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/06/20 10/07/20 5,329.882.81 0.17 23,165.76 5,106,903.20 4,994.531.00 DTD 04/30/2018 2.750%04/30/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828R69 3,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/30/20 11/05/20 3,630,429.69 0.17 4,817.28 3,546,492.55 3,459,531.25 DTD 05/31/2016 1.625%05/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZU7 6,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/24/20 09/28/20 6,518,281.25 0.15 710.38 6,506,444.60 6,334,452.80 DTD 06/15/2020 0.250%06/15/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCN9 6,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/06/21 08/09/21 5,990.156.25 0.21 3,128.45 5,994,607.10 5,820.000.00 DTD 07/31/2021 0.125%07/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAF8 5,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/06/20 10/07/20 4,991,796.88 0.18 2,348.07 4,996,772.28 4,842,969.00 DTD 08/15/2020 0.125%08/15/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAK7 5,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/23/20 11/24/20 4,988,476.56 0.21 1,834.24 4,995,042.11 4,832,031.00 DTD 09/15/2020 0.125%09/15/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CDA6 2,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/04/21 10/06/21 1,999,140.63 0.27 1,256.83 1,999,458.74 1,933,750.00 DTD 09/30/2021 0.250%09/30/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDD0 6,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/01/21 11/03/21 5,983.125.00 0.52 3,790.76 5,988,695.84 5,796.562.80 DTD 10/31/2021 0.375%10/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBA8 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/08/22 06/09/22 963,359.38 2.60 54.64 964,814.42 959,375.00 DTD 12/15/2020 0.125%12/15/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDR9 3,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/03/22 01/05/22 3,497,949.22 0.78 71.33 3,498,449.89 3,385,156.25 DTD 12/31/2021 0.750%12/31/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDR9 5,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/06/22 01/07/22 4,987.304.69 0.88 101.90 4,990,377.55 4,835.937.50 DTD 12/31/2021 0.750%12/31/2023 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 5 Page 51 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDV0 5,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 04/21/22 04/22/22 4,845,507.81 2.67 18,249.31 4,862,171.07 4,837,500.00 DTD 01/31/2022 0.875%01/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286G0 8,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/24/20 09/28/20 8,600,312.50 0.18 63,505.43 8,292,225.78 7,922,500.00 DTD 02/28/2019 2.375%02/29/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828X70 3,615,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/30/20 11/05/20 3,836,983.59 0.23 12,180.98 3,731,750.80 3,551,172.84 DTD 05/01/2017 2.000%04/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CEK3 5,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/08/22 06/09/22 4,977,734.38 2.74 21,059.78 4,978,443.27 4,956,250.00 DTD 04/30/2022 2.500%04/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCC3 1,900,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/01/21 11/03/21 1,878,921.88 0.69 606.66 1,884,396.72 1,805,593.75 DTD 05/15/2021 0.250%05/15/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CER8 1,430,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/02/22 06/06/22 1,425,866.41 2.65 3,028.01 1,426,008.95 1,417,264.13 DTD 05/31/2022 2.500%05/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286Z8 5,150,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/06/22 05/09/22 5,042,976.56 2.75 244.90 5,050,220.80 5,026,078.13 DTD 06/30/2019 1.750%06/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCL3 5,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/02/21 08/03/21 5,006,640.63 0.33 8,649.86 5,004,593.56 4,742,187.50 DTD 07/15/2021 0.375%07/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828Y87 5,670,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/06/20 10/07/20 5,995,139.06 0.24 41,389.43 5,847,624.43 5,526,478.13 DTD 07/31/2019 1.750%07/31/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCT6 4,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/01/21 09/03/21 3,996,250.00 0.41 5,635.36 3,997,298.05 3,783,124.80 DTD 08/15/2021 0.375%08/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YE4 2,245,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/25/21 01/26/21 2,325,942.78 0.24 9,379.59 2,293,824.59 2,162,566.29 DTD 08/31/2019 1.250%08/31/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCX7 1,400,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/04/21 10/06/21 1,394,914.06 0.50 1,540.76 1,396,182.00 1,320,812.50 DTD 09/15/2021 0.375%09/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 9128282Y5 5,645,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/24/20 09/28/20 6,075,872.27 0.21 30,152.94 5,887,089.55 5,539,156.25 DTD 10/02/2017 2.125%09/30/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YM6 2,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/16/20 11/18/20 2,616,796.88 0.31 6,317.93 2,569,042.09 2,414,843.75 DTD 10/31/2019 1.500%10/31/2024 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 6 Page 52 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 912828YV6 5,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/23/20 11/24/20 5,239,843.75 0.30 6,352.46 5,144,364.03 4,822,656.00 DTD 11/30/2019 1.500%11/30/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YY0 1,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/03/22 01/05/22 1,021.210.94 1.03 47.55 1,017,769.75 969,062.50 DTD 12/31/2019 1.750%12/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 9128283Z1 6,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/24/20 09/28/20 6,663.750.00 0.23 55,149.46 6,400,141.73 5,955,000.00 DTD 02/28/2018 2.750%02/28/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZF0 2,750,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/17/20 11/20/20 2,769,335.94 0.34 3,456.28 2,762,194.27 2,566,093.75 DTD 03/31/2020 0.500%03/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZL7 2,100,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/06/22 01/07/22 2,042,003.91 1.23 1,326.77 2,050,398.71 1,948,406.25 DTD 04/30/2020 0.375%04/30/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAB7 3,400.000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/20/22 05/23/22 3,140.085.94 2.77 3,545.58 3,148,786.93 3,120.562.50 DTD 07/31/2020 0.250%07/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAB7 4,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/25/21 01/26/21 4,478,730.47 0.36 4,692.68 4,485,458.72 4,130,156.25 DTD 07/31/2020 0.250%07/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAB7 7,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/06/21 01/08/21 6,956,250.00 0.39 7,299.72 6,970,412.91 6,424,687.50 DTD 07/31/2020 0.250%07/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAZ4 3,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 02/16/22 02/17/22 2,833.007.81 1.91 952.87 2,849.199.53 2,739.843.60 DTD 11/30/2020 0.375%11/30/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBC4 3,900,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/06/21 05/07/21 3,837,082.03 0.73 39.74 3,852,635.62 3,553,265.82 DTD 12/31/2020 0.375%12/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBH3 745,000.00 AA+ Aaa 07/06/21 07/07/21 732,748.24 0.74 1,165.35 735,383.58 677,251.56 DTD 01/31/2021 0.375%01/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBH3 6,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/06/21 08/09/21 5,912,578.13 0.71 9,385.36 5,929,998.38 5,454,375.00 DTD 01/31/2021 0.375%01/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CB03 2,650.000.00 AA+ Aaa 03/02/21 03/03/21 2,623.810.55 0.70 4,428.67 2,630,778.12 2,414.812.50 DTD 02/28/2021 0.500%02/28/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CBT7 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 04/02/21 04/06/21 2,973,632.81 0.93 5,655.74 2,980,166.66 2,755,312.50 DTD 03/31/2021 0.750%03/31/2026 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 7 Page 53 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 912828R36 3,525,000.00 AA+ Aaa 03/03/22 03/07/22 3,504,758.79 1.77 7,315.81 3,506,293.42 3,339,937.50 DTD 05/16/2016 1.625%05/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCF6 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 02/16/22 02/17/22 2,854,687.50 1.93 1,905.74 2,867,137.55 2,744,531.40 DTD 05/31/2021 0.750%05/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCF6 6,100,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/02/21 06/04/21 6,086,656.25 0.79 3,875.00 6,089,527.13 5,580,547.18 DTD 05/31/2021 0.750%05/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCP4 2,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/06/21 08/09/21 1,986,015.63 0.77 5,214.09 1,988,524.66 1,813,125.00 DTD 07/31/2021 0.625%07/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCP4 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/02/21 08/03/21 2,992,031.25 0.68 7,821.13 2,993,482.50 2,719,687.50 DTD 07/31/2021 0.625%07/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 9128282A7 4,525,000.00 AA+ Aaa 04/21/22 04/22/22 4,249,081.05 3.02 25,500.00 4,261,336.33 4,248,550.56 DTD 08/15/2016 1.500%08/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDG3 400,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/17/21 11/18/21 397,578.13 1.25 758.15 397,879.52 368,625.00 DTD 10/31/2021 1.125%10/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDG3 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/20/22 05/23/22 2,789,648.44 2.82 5,686.14 2,794,706.21 2,764,687.50 DTD 10/31/2021 1.125%10/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 912828U24 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/08/22 06/09/22 2,870,390.63 3.05 7,663.04 2,872,150.76 2,867,812.50 DTD 11/15/2016 2.000%11/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDK4 2,895,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/01/21 12/03/21 2,903,255.27 1.19 3,065.06 2,902,304.31 2,680,589.06 DTD 11/30/2021 1.250%11/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CD01 1,625,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/03/22 01/05/22 1,616,684.57 1.36 55.20 1,617,492.82 1,501,601.56 DTD 12/31/2021 1.250%12/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 912828V98 3,725,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/02/22 06/06/22 3,611,794.92 2.95 31,487.57 3,613,445.14 3,591,132.81 DTD 02/15/2017 2.250%02/15/2027 Security Type Sub-Total 202,405,000.00 203,745,552.01 0.91 509,316.52 202,256,779.43 193,371,366.48 Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTL BK RECON&DEVELOP NOTES 459058JM6 1,410,000.00 MA Aaa 11/17/20 11/24/20 1,406,968.50 0.32 362.29 1,408,585.30 1,357,782.06 DTD 11/24/2020 0.250%11/24/2023 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 8 Page 54 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTER-AMERICAN DEVEL BK NOTES 4581X0DZ8 3,755,000.00 AAA Aaa 09/15/21 09/23/21 3,752,221.30 0.52 5,110.97 3,752,933.72 3,549,894.39 DTD 09/23/2021 0.500%09/23/2024 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 4581X0DK1 1,500,000.00 AAA Aaa 02/19/21 02/23/21 1,576,950.00 0.47 7,802.08 1,551,317.33 1,449,975.00 NOTES DTD 01/16/2020 1.750%03/14/2025 Security Type Sub-Total 6,665,000.00 6,736,139.80 0.47 13,275.34 6,712,836.35 6,357,651.45 Municipal Bond/ Note SAN MATEO-FOSTER SCH DIST,CA TXBL GO 7990550R2 500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/19/20 05/19/20 502,300.00 0.95 2,420.83 500,088.68 499,945.00 BO DTD 05/19/2020 1.162%08/01/2022 SAN MATEO-FOSTER SCH DIST,CA TXBL GO 7990550S0 500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/19/20 05/19/20 503,385.00 1.05 2,637.50 501,146.67 490,515.00 BO DTD 05/19/2020 1.266%08/01/2023 Security Type Sub-Total 1,000,000.00 1,005,685.00 1.00 5,058.33 1,001,235.35 990,460.00 Federal Agency Bond / Note FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G05G4 4,260,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/24/20 09/28/20 4,261,192.80 0.24 5,058.75 4,260,439.51 4,145,644.56 DTD 07/10/2020 0.250%07/10/2023 FREDDIE MAC NOTES 3137EAEW5 4,800,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/24/20 09/28/20 4,802,928.00 0.23 3,766.67 4,801,182.09 4,649,606.40 DTD 09/04/2020 0.250%09/08/2023 FREDDIE MAC NOTES 3137EAEZ8 1,700,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/03/20 11/05/20 1,698,470.00 0.28 649.31 1,699,311.78 1,639,208.00 DTD 11/05/2020 0.250%11/06/2023 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G06H1 4,400,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/23/20 11/25/20 4,394,984.00 0.29 1,038.89 4,397,649.75 4,234,230.00 DTD 11/25/2020 0.250%11/27/2023 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G04Z3 2,895,000.00 AA+ Aaa 07/21/20 07/21/20 2,901,803.25 0.45 562.92 2,899,107.77 2,680,538.40 DTD 06/19/2020 0.500%06/17/2025 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G04Z3 5,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/24/20 09/28/20 5,017,800.00 0.42 972.22 5,011,177.95 4,629,600.00 DTD 06/19/2020 0.500%06/17/2025 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 9 Page 55 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Federal Agency Bond / Note FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK NOTES 3133ELR71 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 07/21/20 07/21/20 3,007,110.00 0.45 7,458.33 3,004,316.36 2,777,211.00 DTD 07/02/2020 0.500%07/02/2025 FANNIE MAE NOTES(CALLABLE) 3136G4ZJ5 2,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 07/21/20 07/21/20 2.499.000.00 0.63 6,944.44 2,499,388.83 2,317,692.50 DTD 07/21/2020 0.625%07/21/2025 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G05X7 2,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/30/20 11/05/20 1,988,500.00 0.50 2,625.00 1,992,453.53 1,838,222.00 DTD 08/27/2020 0.375%08/25/2025 FREDDIE MAC NOTES 3137EAEX3 2,300,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/23/20 09/25/20 2,293,077.00 0.44 2,347.92 2,295,521.30 2,110,917.00 DTD 09/25/2020 0.375%09/23/2025 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G06G3 1,390,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/12/20 11/13/20 1,387,720.40 0.53 1,042.50 1,388,465.65 1,275,855.98 DTD 11/12/2020 0.500%11/07/2025 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G06G3 4,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/02/20 12/04/20 4,494,465.00 0.53 3,375.00 4,496,231.03 4,130,469.00 DTD 11/12/2020 0.500%11/07/2025 Security Type Sub-Total 38,745,000.00 38,747,050.45 0.39 35,841.95 38,745,245.55 36,429,194.84 Corporate Note APPLE INC(CALLABLE)BONDS 037833CG3 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 02/11/19 02/11/19 3,019,140.00 2.86 35,500.00 3,005,713.76 2,994,594.00 DTD 02/09/2017 3.000%02/09/2024 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP NOTES 808513BN4 660,000.00 A A2 03/16/21 03/18/21 659,670.00 0.77 1,416.25 659,811.51 633.085.86 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/18/2021 0.750%03/18/2024 AMAZON.COM INC CORPORATE NOTES 023135BW5 1,455,000.00 AA Al 05/10/21 05/12/21 1,452,875.70 0.50 891.19 1,453,680.07 1,383,216.12 DTD 05/12/2021 0.450%05/12/2024 HSBC USA INC CORPORATE NOTES 40428HTA0 2,000,000.00 A- Al 05/17/22 05/24/22 1,999,920.00 3.75 7,708.33 1,999,924.16 1,987,082.00 DTD 05/24/2022 3.750%05/24/2024 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO CORP NOTES 025816CG2 1,725,000.00 BBB+ A2 11/19/21 11/23/21 1,786,755.00 1.14 18,088.54 1,772,453.84 1,680,205.20 (CALLABLE DTD 07/30/2019 2.500%07/30/2024 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 10 Page 56 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Corporate Note UNILEVER CAPITAL CORP(CALLABLE) 904764BN6 440,000.00 A+ Al 08/09/21 08/12/21 440,000.00 0.63 1,063.50 440,000.00 414,890.96 CORPORA DTD 08/12/2021 0.626%08/12/2024 BMW US CAPITAL LLC CORPORATE NOTES 05565EBU8 515,000.00 A A2 08/09/21 08/12/21 514.953.65 0.75 1,491.35 514,967.31 485,776.33 DTD 08/12/2021 0.750%08/12/2024 US BANK NA CINCINNATI(CALLABLE) 90331HPL1 2,500,000.00 AA- Al 10/30/20 11/05/20 2,640,450.00 0.69 22,777.78 2,584,214.04 2,400,335.00 CORPORA DTD 01/21/2020 2.050%01/21/2025 NOVARTIS CAPITAL CORP 66989HAP3 3,000,000.00 AA- Al 09/24/20 09/28/20 3,144,750.00 0.63 19,979.17 3,085,613.77 2,892,852.00 DTD 02/14/2020 1.750%02/14/2025 JPMORGAN CHASE&CO CORP NOTES 46647PBY1 610,000.00 A- A2 02/09/21 02/16/21 610,000.00 0.56 1,287.86 610,000.00 574,907.92 (CALLABLE DTD 02/16/2021 0.563%02/16/2025 ROCHE HOLDINGS INC(CALLABLE) 771196BT8 3,015,000.00 AA Aa3 03/03/22 03/10/22 3,015,000.00 2.13 19,819.61 3,015,000.00 2,910,026.75 CORPORATE DTD 03/10/2022 2.132%03/10/2025 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP(CALLABLE) 369550BG2 1,600,000.00 A- A3 03/05/21 03/09/21 1,757,296.00 1.09 7,155.56 1,705,936.23 1,595,460.80 CORP NO DTD 05/11/2018 3.500%05/15/2025 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP CORPORATE 63743HFE7 445,000.00 A- A2 04/27/22 05/04/22 444,879.85 3.46 2,430.81 444,885.97 442,468.40 NOTES DTD 05/04/2022 3.450%06/15/2025 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTE(CALLABLE) 172967ND9 1,500,000.00 BBB+ A3 11/01/21 11/03/21 1,501,545.00 1.25 3,095.75 1,501,206.68 1,390,591.50 DTD 11/03/2021 1.281%11/03/2025 BANK OF NY MELLON CORP(CALLABLE) 06406RA00 1,685,000.00 A Al 01/28/21 02/01/21 1,684,005.85 0.76 5,370.94 1,684,286.85 1,516,435.97 CORPOR DTD 01/28/2021 0.750%01/28/2026 STATE STREET CORP(CALLABLE) 857477BR3 305,000.00 A Al 02/02/22 02/07/22 305,000.00 1.75 2,130.12 305,000.00 292,965.01 CORPORATE N DTD 02/07/2022 1.746%02/06/2026 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 11 Page 57 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Corporate Note STATE STREET CORP(CALLABLE) 857477BR3 2,000,000.00 A Al 04/27/22 04/29/22 1,914,860.00 2.95 13,968.00 1,918,749.64 1,921,082.00 CORPORATE N DTD 02/07/2022 1.746%02/06/2026 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC CORPORATE 38141GXS8 1,900,000.00 BBB+ A2 02/12/21 02/17/21 1,903,876.00 0.81 6,272.38 1,902,813.88 1,728,798.60 NOTES DTD 02/12/2021 0.855%02/12/2026 BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTES 06051GKM0 2,000,000.00 A- A2 05/06/22 05/10/22 1,958,700.00 3.96 18,612.00 1,960,209.21 1,938,664.00 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/22/2022 3.384%04/02/2026 JPMORGAN CHASE&CO(CALLABLE) 46647PCZ7 1,100,000.00 A- A2 06/08/22 06/10/22 1,100,638.00 4.06 8,103.33 1,100,625.25 1,083,892.70 CORPORATE DTD 04/26/2022 4.080%04/26/2026 IBM CORP 459200JZ5 1,675,000.00 A- A3 09/01/21 09/03/21 1,844,861.75 1.08 7,062.92 1,815,049.28 1,634,590.63 DTD 05/15/2019 3.300%05/15/2026 ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC(CALLABLE) 04636NAA1 1,675,000.00 A- A3 09/01/21 09/03/21 1,684,095.25 1.08 1,842.50 1,682,482.96 1,511,422.85 CORP DTD 05/28/2021 1.200%05/28/2026 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP CORPORATE 89236TJK2 1,105,000.00 A+ Al 09/08/21 09/13/21 1,102,546.90 1.17 448.91 1,102,957.40 998,657.01 NOTES DTD 06/18/2021 1.125%06/18/2026 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES 61761J3R8 1,000,000.00 A- Al 11/01/21 11/03/21 1,062,320.00 1.75 13,368.06 1,053,659.43 952,953.00 DTD 07/25/2016 3.125%07/27/2026 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATE 02665WDZ1 2,000,000.00 A- A3 12/01/21 12/03/21 1,970,740.00 1.62 8,088.89 1,974,269.35 1,800,960.00 NOTES DTD 09/09/2021 1.300%09/09/2026 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE CORPORATE 14913R209 2,000,000.00 A A2 12/01/21 12/03/21 1,967,640.00 1.50 6,836.11 1,971,532.10 1,802,714.00 NOTES DTD 09/14/2021 1.150%09/14/2026 JPMORGAN CHASE&CO CORP NOTES 46625HRV4 1,000,000.00 A- A2 11/01/21 11/03/21 1,057,540.00 1.72 7,375.00 1,049,421.48 954,203.00 DTD 07/21/2016 2.950%10/01/2026 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 12 Page 58 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Corporate Note JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP CORPORATE 24422EWA3 2,000,000.00 A A2 01/11/22 01/13/22 1,988,720.00 1.82 16,150.00 1,989,765.13 1,823,216.00 NOTES DTD 01/10/2022 1.700%01/11/2027 TARGET CORP CORPORATE NOTES 87612EBM7 355,000.00 A A2 01/19/22 01/24/22 354,396.50 1.99 3,018.98 354,448.98 328,686.34 DTD 01/24/2022 1.950%01/15/2027 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL(CALLABLE) 438516CE4 1,600,000.00 A A2 03/03/22 03/07/22 1,511,904.00 2.27 5,866.67 1,517,518.91 1,421,016.00 CORP DTD 08/16/2021 1.100%03/01/2027 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP NOTES 89788MAD4 2,100,000.00 A- A3 03/24/22 03/28/22 1,949,808.00 2.83 8,795.09 1,957,734.80 1,888,311.60 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/02/2021 1.267%03/02/2027 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP NOTES 808513BY0 2,000,000.00 A A2 04/27/22 04/29/22 1,898,200.00 3.60 16,061.11 1,901,825.44 1,862,896.00 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/03/2022 2.450%03/03/2027 HOME DEPOT INC(CALLABLE)CORPORATE 437076CN0 2,000,000.00 A A2 05/06/22 05/10/22 1,936,100.00 3.59 14,854.17 1,937,944.98 1,922,954.00 NOTE DTD 03/28/2022 2.875%04/15/2027 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES 61772BAB9 500,000.00 A- Al 06/08/22 06/10/22 452,825.00 3.72 1,261.13 453,378.76 443,693.00 (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2021 1.593%05/04/2027 NORTHERN TRUST CORP NOTE(CALLABLE) 665859AW4 1,595,000.00 A+ A2 05/10/22 05/12/22 1,610,407.70 3.79 9,038.33 1,609,978.28 1,603,383.32 DTD 05/10/2022 4.000%05/10/2027 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC CORPORATE 91324PEG3 400,000.00 A+ A3 05/17/22 05/20/22 399.784.00 3.71 1,685.56 399,788.98 399,644.00 NOTES DTD 05/20/2022 3.700%05/15/2027 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC CORPORATE 91324PEG3 1,400,000.00 A+ A3 06/02/22 06/06/22 1,412,488.00 3.50 5,899.44 1,412,314.94 1,398,754.00 NOTES DTD 05/20/2022 3.700%05/15/2027 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 13 Page 59 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Corporate Note NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK/NY CORPORATE 63254ABE7 3,000,000.00 AA- Aa3 06/09/22 06/13/22 2,973,990.00 4.10 7,159.17 2,974,246.96 2,958,330.00 NOTES DTD 06/09/2022 3.905%06/09/2027 Security Type Sub-Total 58,860,000.00 59,032,682.15 2.17 331,974.51 58,823,410.33 55,973,715.87 Certificate of Deposit- FDIC Insured WELLS FARGO BANK NA 949763S64 245,000.00 NR NR 01/29/20 01/29/20 245,000.00 1.90 25.51 245,000.00 244,784.40 DTD 01/29/2020 1.900%01/30/2023 MORGAN STANLEY PVT BANK 61760A607 245,000.00 NR NR 01/30/20 01/30/20 245,000.00 1.85 1,887.51 245,000.00 244,712.37 DTD 01/30/2020 1.850%01/30/2023 ENERBANK USA 29278TOD5 245,000.00 NR NR 07/24/20 07/24/20 245,000.00 0.45 21.14 245,000.00 232,148.53 DTD 07/24/2020 0.450%07/24/2024 CHIPPEWA VALLEY BANK 169894AT9 245,000.00 NR NR 07/29/20 07/29/20 245,000.00 0.50 6.71 245,000.00 225,053.82 DTD 07/29/2020 0.500%07/29/2025 MEDALLION BANK UTAH 58404DH07 245,000.00 NR NR 07/30/20 07/30/20 245,000.00 0.55 3.69 245,000.00 225,380.65 DTD 07/30/2020 0.550%07/30/2025 Security Type Sub-Total 1,225,000.00 1,225,000.00 1.07 1,944.56 1,225,000.00 1,172,079.77 Certificate of Deposit TORONTO DOMINION BANK NY CERT 89114WXU4 3,000,000.00 A-1+ P-1 05/20/22 05/23/22 3,000,000.00 2.80 9,100.00 3,000,000.00 2,970,576.34 DEPOS DTD 05/23/2022 2.800%05/19/2023 Security Type Sub-Total 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2.80 9,100.00 3,000,000.00 2,970,576.34 Asset-Backed Security MBALT 2021-A A3 58770GAC4 163,054.31 AAA Aaa 01/20/21 01/27/21 163,037.83 0.25 18.12 163,045.74 161,252.01 DTD 01/27/2021 0.250%01/16/2024 HALST 2021-A A4 44891TAD8 280,000.00 AAA Aaa 01/12/21 01/20/21 279,976.70 0.42 52.27 279,985.31 273,387.46 DTD 01/20/2021 0.420%12/16/2024 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 14 Page 60 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Asset-Backed Security GMALT 2021-1 A4 36261RAD0 515,000.00 NR Aaa 02/17/21 02/24/21 514,922.24 0.33 51.93 514,948.50 501,956.54 DTD 02/24/2021 0.330%02/20/2025 HAROT 2021-1 A3 43813GAC5 530,000.00 NR Aaa 02/17/21 02/24/21 529.990.30 0.27 39.75 529.993.45 517,571.77 DTD 02/24/2021 0.270%04/21/2025 HART 2021-A A3 44933LAC7 540,000.00 AAA NR 04/20/21 04/28/21 539,943.19 0.38 91.20 539,958.41 523,001.77 DTD 04/28/2021 0.380%09/15/2025 GMCAR 2021-1 A3 36261LAC5 375,000.00 AM Aaa 01/12/21 01/20/21 374,940.30 0.35 54.69 374,958.49 366,318.98 DTD 01/20/2021 0.350%10/16/2025 KCOT 2021-2A A3 50117XAE2 925,000.00 NR Aaa 07/20/21 07/28/21 924,965.13 0.56 230.22 924,972.62 871,096.90 DTD 07/28/2021 0.560%11/17/2025 CARMX 2021-1 A3 14316NAC3 120,000.00 AAA NR 01/20/21 01/27/21 119,976.29 0.34 18.13 119,983.20 116,976.60 DTD 01/27/2021 0.340%12/15/2025 HAROT 2021-4 A3 43815GAC3 745,000.00 NR Aaa 11/16/21 11/24/21 744,842.95 0.89 182.11 744,865.59 711,781.79 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880%01/21/2026 CARMX 2021-2 A3 143140AC8 810,000.00 AAA NR 04/13/21 04/21/21 809,825.45 0.52 187.20 809,868.62 786,320.06 DTD 04/21/2021 0.520%02/17/2026 CARMX 2021-3 A3 14317DAC4 1,530.000.00 AAA Aaa 07/21/21 07/28/21 1,529.748.32 0.55 374.00 1,529.796.03 1,470.164.76 DTD 07/28/2021 0.550%06/15/2026 VALET 2021-1 A3 92868KAC7 1,025,000.00 AAA Aaa 12/07/21 12/13/21 1,024,959.82 1.02 319.46 1,024,964.68 982,837.86 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020%06/22/2026 HART 2022-A A3 448977AD0 1,500,000.00 AAA NR 03/09/22 03/16/22 1,499,942.25 2.22 1,480.00 1,499,945.94 1,456,100.70 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220%10/15/2026 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 380146AC4 570,000.00 AAA NR 01/11/22 01/19/22 569,950.47 1.26 299.25 569,955.05 544,730.70 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260%11/16/2026 COMET 2021-A3 A3 14041NFY2 1,865.000.00 AM NR 11/18/21 11/30/21 1,864.743.00 1.04 862.04 1,864,773.21 1,763.378.57 DTD 11/30/2021 1.040%11/16/2026 Security Type Sub-Total 11,493,054.31 11,491,764.24 0.90 4,260.37 11,492,014.84 11,046,876.47 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 15 Page 61 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- SecurityType/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Managed Account Sub-Total 323,393,054.31 324,983,873.65 1.09 910,771.58 323,256,521.85 308,311,921.22 Securities Sub-Total $323,393,054.31 $324,983,873.65 1.09% $910,771.58 $323,256,521.85 $308,311,921.22 Accrued Interest $910,771.58 Total Investments $309,222,692.80 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 16 Page 62 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 9128284A5 1,810,000.00 CITIGRP 99.94 1,808,868.75 (101,388.28) (30,292.55) 0.66 2.72 DTD 02/28/2018 2.625%02/28/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828P79 4,250,000.00 BNP_PAR 99.17 4,214,804.90 (156,718.54) (73,738.58) 0.66 2.76 DTD 02/29/2016 1.500%02/28/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZD5 3,450,000.00 WELLS_F 98.42 3,395,554.86 (81,802.56) (62,620.56) 0.71 2.76 DTD 03/15/2020 0.500%03/15/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 9128284L1 5,000,000.00 CITIGRP 99.89 4,994,531.00 (335,351.81) (112,372.20) 0.83 2.88 DTD 04/30/2018 2.750%04/30/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828R69 3,500,000.00 NOMURA 98.84 3,459,531.25 (170,898.44) (86,961.30) 0.91 2.91 DTD 05/31/2016 1.625%05/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZU7 6,500,000.00 WELLS_F 97.45 6,334,452.80 (183,828.45) (171,991.80) 0.96 2.96 DTD 06/15/2020 0.250%06/15/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCN9 6,000,000.00 MERRILL 97.00 5,820,000.00 (170,156.25) (174,607.10) 1.08 2.95 DTD 07/31/2021 0.125%07/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAF8 5,000,000.00 HSBC 96.86 4,842,969.00 (148,827.88) (153,803.28) 1.13 2.98 DTD 08/15/2020 0.125%08/15/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAK7 5,000,000.00 NOMURA 96.64 4,832,031.00 (156,445.56) (163,011.11) 1.21 2.97 DTD 09/15/2020 0.125%09/15/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CDA6 2,000,000.00 NOMURA 96.69 1,933,750.00 (65,390.63) (65,708.74) 1.25 2.97 DTD 09/30/2021 0.250%09/30/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDD0 6,000,000.00 CITIGRP 96.61 5,796,562.80 (186,562.20) (192,133.04) 1.33 2.99 DTD 10/31/2021 0.375%10/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBA8 1,000,000.00 BMO 95.94 959,375.00 (3,984.38) (5,439.42) 1.46 2.99 DTD 12/15/2020 0.125%12/15/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDR9 3,500,000.00 JPM_CHA 96.72 3,385,156.25 (112,792.97) (113,293.64) 1.49 3.00 DTD 12/31/2021 0.750%12/31/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDR9 5,000,000.00 CITIGRP 96.72 4,835,937.50 (151,367.19) (154,440.05) 1.49 3.00 DTD 12/31/2021 0.750%12/31/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDV0 5,000,000.00 RBS 96.75 4,837,500.00 (8,007.81) (24,671.07) 1.57 2.99 DTD 01/31/2022 0.875%01/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286G0 8,000,000.00 RBS 99.03 7,922,500.00 (677,812.50) (369,725.78) 1.63 2.97 DTD 02/28/2019 2.375%02/29/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828X70 3,615,000.00 MORGAN_ 98.23 3,551,172.84 (285,810.75) (180,577.96) 1.80 3.00 DTD 05/01/2017 2.000%04/30/2024 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 17 Page 63 pfmI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CEK3 5,000,000.00 BMO 99.13 4,956,250.00 (21,484.38) (22,193.27) 1.80 2.99 DTD 04/30/2022 2.500%04/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCC3 1,900,000.00 CITIGRP 95.03 1,805,593.75 (73,328.13) (78,802.97) 1.87 2.99 DTD 05/15/2021 0.250%05/15/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CER8 1,430,000.00 BMO 99.11 1,417,264.13 (8,602.28) (8,744.82) 1.88 2.98 DTD 05/31/2022 2.500%05/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286Z8 5,150,000.00 NOMURA 97.59 5,026,078.13 (16,898.43) (24,142.67) 1.97 3.00 DTD 06/30/2019 1.750%06/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCL3 5.000,000.00 NOMURA 94.84 4,742,187.50 (264,453.13) (262,406.06) 2.03 3.00 DTD 07/15/2021 0.375%07/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828Y87 5,670,000.00 WELLS_F 97.47 5,526,478.13 (468,660.93) (321,146.30) 2.04 3.01 DTD 07/31/2019 1.750%07/31/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCT6 4,000,000.00 NOMURA 94.58 3,783,124.80 (213,125.20) (214,173.25) 2.12 3.03 DTD 08/15/2021 0.375%08/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YE4 2,245,000.00 BNP_PAR 96.33 2,162,566.29 (163,376.49) (131,258.30) 2.14 3.01 DTD 08/31/2019 1.250%08/31/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCX7 1,400,000.00 MERRILL 94.34 1,320,812.50 (74,101.56) (75,369.50) 2.20 3.04 DTD 09/15/2021 0.375%09/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 9128282Y5 5,645,000.00 CITIGRP 98.13 5,539,156.25 (536,716.02) (347,933.30) 2.20 2.99 DTD 10/02/2017 2.125%09/30/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YM6 2,500,000.00 CITIGRP 96.59 2,414,843.75 (201,953.13) (154,198.34) 2.30 3.02 DTD 10/31/2019 1.500%10/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828W6 5,000,000.00 NOMURA 96.45 4,822,656.00 (417,187.75) (321,708.03) 2.38 3.03 DTD 11/30/2019 1.500%11/30/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YY0 1,000,000.00 MORGAN_ 96.91 969,062.50 (52,148.44) (48,707.25) 2.46 3.04 DTD 12/31/2019 1.750%12/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 9128283Z1 6,000,000.00 MERRILL 99.25 5,955,000.00 (708,750.00) (445,141.73) 2.57 3.04 DTD 02/28/2018 2.750%02/28/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZF0 2,750,000.00 MORGAN_ 93.31 2,566,093.75 (203,242.19) (196,100.52) 2.73 3.05 DTD 03/31/2020 0.500%03/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZL7 2,100,000.00 NOMURA 92.78 1,948,406.25 (93,597.66) (101,992.46) 2.82 3.05 DTD 04/30/2020 0.375%04/30/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAB7 3.400,000.00 BMO 91.78 3,120,562.50 (19,523.44) (28,224.43) 3.07 3.06 DTD 07/31/2020 0.250%07/31/2025 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 18 Page 64 pfmI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAB7 4,500,000.00 BNP_PAR 91.78 4,130,156.25 (348,574.22) (355,302.47) 3.07 3.06 DTD 07/31/2020 0.250%07/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAB7 7,000,000.00 JPM_CHA 91.78 6,424,687.50 (531,562.50) (545,725.41) 3.07 3.06 DTD 07/31/2020 0.250%07/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAZ4 3,000,000.00 NOMURA 91.33 2,739,843.60 (93,164.21) (109,355.93) 3.40 3.07 DTD 11/30/2020 0.375%11/30/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBC4 3,900,000.00 HSBC 91.11 3,553,265.82 (283,816.21) (299,369.80) 3.48 3.07 DTD 12/31/2020 0.375%12/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBH3 745,000.00 CITIGRP 90.91 677,251.56 (55,496.68) (58,132.02) 3.56 3.07 DTD 01/31/2021 0.375%01/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBH3 6,000,000.00 RBS 90.91 5,454,375.00 (458,203.13) (475,623.38) 3.56 3.07 DTD 01/31/2021 0.375%01/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CB03 2,650,000.00 CITIGRP 91.13 2,414,812.50 (208,998.05) (215,965.62) 3.63 3.08 DTD 02/28/2021 0.500%02/28/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CBT7 3,000,000.00 NOMURA 91.84 2,755,312.50 (218,320.31) (224,854.16) 3.70 3.07 DTD 03/31/2021 0.750%03/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 912828R36 3,525,000.00 CITIGRP 94.75 3,339,937.50 (164,821.29) (166,355.92) 3.76 3.07 DTD 05/16/2016 1.625%05/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCF6 3.000,000.00 JPM_CHA 91.48 2,744,531.40 (110,156.10) (122,606.15) 3.86 3.07 DTD 05/31/2021 0.750%05/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCF6 6,100,000.00 RBC 91.48 5,580,547.18 (506,109.07) (508,979.95) 3.86 3.07 DTD 05/31/2021 0.750%05/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCP4 2,000,000.00 CITIGRP 90.66 1,813,125.00 (172,890.63) (175,399.66) 4.03 3.08 DTD 07/31/2021 0.625%07/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCP4 3,000,000.00 CITIGRP 90.66 2,719,687.50 (272,343.75) (273,795.00) 4.03 3.08 DTD 07/31/2021 0.625%07/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 9128282A7 4,525,000.00 MERRILL 93.89 4,248,550.56 (530.49) (12,785.77) 3.99 3.09 DTD 08/15/2016 1.500%08/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDG3 400,000.00 CITIGRP 92.16 368,625.00 (28,953.13) (29,254.52) 4.23 3.07 DTD 10/31/2021 1.125%10/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDG3 3,000,000.00 BMO 92.16 2,764,687.50 (24,960.94) (30,018.71) 4.23 3.07 DTD 10/31/2021 1.125%10/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 912828U24 3,000,000.00 MERRILL 95.59 2,867,812.50 (2,578.13) (4,338.26) 4.20 3.08 DTD 11/15/2016 2.000%11/15/2026 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 19 Page 65 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDK4 2,895,000.00 NOMURA 92.59 2,680,589.06 (222,666.21) (221,715.25) 4.30 3.05 DTD 11/30/2021 1.250%11/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CD01 1,625,000.00 JPM_CHA 92.41 1,501,601.56 (115,083.01) (115,891.26) 4.38 3.07 DTD 12/31/2021 1.250%12/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 912828V98 3,725,000.00 MERRILL 96.41 3,591,132.81 (20,662.11) (22,312.33) 4.38 3.09 DTD 02/15/2017 2.250%02/15/2027 Security Type Sub-Total 202,405,000.00 193,371,366.48 (10,374,185.53) (8,885,412.95) 2.34 3.01 Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTL BK RECON&DEVELOP NOTES 4590581M6 1,410,000.00 TD 96.30 1,357,782.06 (49,186.44) (50,803.24) 1.40 2.97 DTD 11/24/2020 0.250%11/24/2023 INTER-AMERICAN DEVEL BK NOTES 4581X0DZ8 3,755,000.00 JPM_CHA 94.54 3,549,894.39 (202,326.91) (203,039.33) 2.22 3.05 DTD 09/23/2021 0.500%09/23/2024 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 4581X0DK1 1,500,000.00 MORGAN_ 96.67 1,449,975.00 (126,975.00) (101,342.33) 2.64 3.04 NOTES DTD 01/16/2020 1.750%03/14/2025 Security Type Sub-Total 6,665,000.00 6,357,651.45 (378,488.35) (355,184.90) 2.14 3.03 Municipal Bond/ Note SAN MATEO-FOSTER SCH DIST,CA TXBL 7990550R2 500,000.00 NEW ACC 99.99 499,945.00 (2,355.00) (143.68) 0.09 1.28 GO BO DTD 05/19/2020 1.162%08/01/2022 SAN MATEO-FOSTER SCH DIST,CA TXBL 7990550S0 500,000.00 NEW ACC 98.10 490,515.00 (12.870.00) (10,631.67) 1.08 3.05 GO BO DTD 05/19/2020 1.266%08/01/2023 Security Type Sub-Total 1,000,000.00 990,460.00 (15,225.00) (10,775.35) 0.58 2.16 Federal Agency Bond / Note FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G05G4 4.260,000.00 MORGAN_ 97.32 4,145,644.56 (115.548.24) (114,794.95) 1.03 2.92 DTD 07/10/2020 0.250%07/10/2023 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 20 Page 66 pfmI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt Federal Agency Bond / Note FREDDIE MAC NOTES 3137EAEW5 4,800,000.00 KEYBANC 96.87 4,649,606.40 (153,321.60) (151,575.69) 1.19 2.95 DTD 09/04/2020 0.250%09/08/2023 FREDDIE MAC NOTES 3137EAEZ8 1,700,000.00 CITIGRP 96.42 1,639,208.00 (59,262.00) (60,103.78) 1.35 2.97 DTD 11/05/2020 0.250%11/06/2023 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G06H1 4,400,000.00 NOMURA 96.23 4,234,230.00 (160,754.00) (163,419.75) 1.41 3.00 DTD 11/25/2020 0.250%11/27/2023 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G04Z3 2,895,000.00 NEW ACC 92.59 2,680,538.40 (221,264.85) (218,569.37) 2.94 3.14 DTD 06/19/2020 0.500%06/17/2025 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G04Z3 5,000,000.00 HSBC 92.59 4,629,600.00 (388,200.00) (381,577.95) 2.94 3.14 DTD 06/19/2020 0.500%06/17/2025 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK NOTES 3133ELR71 3,000,000.00 NEW ACC 92.57 2,777,211.00 (229,899.00) (227,105.36) 2.98 3.11 DTD 07/02/2020 0.500%07/02/2025 FANNIE MAE NOTES(CALLABLE) 3136G4Z35 2,500,000.00 NEW ACC 07/21/22 92.71 2,317,692.50 (181,307.50) (181,696.33) 0.09 3.14 DTD 07/21/2020 0.625%07/21/2025 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G05X7 2,000,000.00 NOMURA 91.91 1,838,222.00 (150,278.00) (154,231.53) 3.13 3.09 DTD 08/27/2020 0.375%08/25/2025 FREDDIE MAC NOTES 3137EAEX3 2,300,000.00 CITIGRP 91.78 2,110,917.00 (182,160.00) (184,604.30) 3.21 3.07 DTD 09/25/2020 0.375%09/23/2025 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G06G3 1,390,000.00 BMO 91.79 1,275,855.98 (111,864.42) (112,609.67) 3.32 3.10 DTD 11/12/2020 0.500%11/07/2025 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G06G3 4,500,000.00 JEFFERI 91.79 4,130,469.00 (363,996.00) (365,762.03) 3.32 3.10 DTD 11/12/2020 0.500%11/07/2025 Security Type Sub-Total 38,745,000.00 36,429,194.84 (2,317,855.61) (2,316,050.71) 2.15 3.05 Corporate Note APPLE INC(CALLABLE)BONDS 037833CG3 3,000,000.00 NEW ACC 12/09/23 99.82 2,994,594.00 (24,546.00) (11,119.76) 1.40 3.11 DTD 02/09/2017 3.000%02/09/2024 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP NOTES 808513BN4 660,000.00 CSFB 02/18/24 95.92 633,085.86 (26,584.14) (26,725.65) 1.62 3.21 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/18/2021 0.750%03/18/2024 AMAZON.COM INC CORPORATE NOTES 023135BW5 1,455,000.00 JPM_CHA 95.07 1,383,216.12 (69,659.58) (70,463.95) 1.86 3.19 DTD 05/12/2021 0.450%05/12/2024 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 21 Page 67 pfmI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt Corporate Note HSBC USA INC CORPORATE NOTES 40428HTA0 2,000,000.00 HSBC 99.35 1,987,082.00 (12,838.00) (12,842.16) 1.85 4.11 DTD 05/24/2022 3.750%05/24/2024 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO CORP NOTES 025816CG2 1,725,000.00 MORGAN_ 06/30/24 97.40 1,680,205.20 (106,549.80) (92,248.64) 1.94 3.81 (CALLABLE DTD 07/30/2019 2.500%07/30/2024 UNILEVER CAPITAL CORP(CALLABLE) 904764BN6 440,000.00 DEUTSCH 08/12/22 94.29 414,890.96 (25,109.04) (25,109.04) 0.14 3.44 CORPORA DTD 08/12/2021 0.626%08/12/2024 BMW US CAPITAL LLC CORPORATE NOTES 05565EBU8 515,000.00 GOLDMAN 94.33 485,776.33 (29,177.32) (29,190.98) 2.10 3.56 DTD 08/12/2021 0.750%08/12/2024 US BANK NA CINCINNATI(CALLABLE) 90331HPL1 2,500,000.00 US_BANC 12/20/24 96.01 2,400,335.00 (240,115.00) (183,879.04) 2.40 3.70 CORPORA DTD 01/21/2020 2.050%01/21/2025 NOVARTIS CAPITAL CORP 66989HAP3 3,000,000.00 US_BANC 01/14/25 96.43 2,892,852.00 (251,898.00) (192,761.77) 2.48 3.18 DTD 02/14/2020 1.750%02/14/2025 JPMORGAN CHASE&CO CORP NOTES 46647PBY1 610,000.00 JPM_CHA 02/16/24 94.25 574,907.92 (35,092.08) (35,092.08) 1.62 2.85 (CALLABLE DTD 02/16/2021 0.563%02/16/2025 ROCHE HOLDINGS INC(CALLABLE) 771196BT8 3,015,000.00 DEUTSCH 02/10/25 96.52 2,910,026.75 (104,973.25) (104,973.25) 2.54 3.50 CORPORATE DTD 03/10/2022 2.132%03/10/2025 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP(CALLABLE) 369550BG2 1,600,000.00 SUSQ 03/15/25 99.72 1,595,460.80 (161,835.20) (110,475.43) 2.60 3.60 CORP NO DTD 05/11/2018 3.500%05/15/2025 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP CORPORATE 63743HFE7 445,000.00 RBC 99.43 442,468.40 (2,411.45) (2,417.57) 2.82 3.65 NOTES DTD 05/04/2022 3.450%06/15/2025 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTE(CALLABLE) 172967ND9 1,500,000.00 MORGAN_ 11/03/24 92.71 1,390,591.50 (110,953.50) (110,615.18) 2.31 3.62 DTD 11/03/2021 1.281%11/03/2025 BANK OF NY MELLON CORP(CALLABLE) 06406RA00 1,685,000.00 MITSU 12/28/25 90.00 1,516,435.97 (167,569.88) (167,850.88) 3.44 3.76 CORPOR DTD 01/28/2021 0.750%01/28/2026 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 22 Page 68 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt Corporate Note STATE STREET CORP(CALLABLE) 857477BR3 305,000.00 GOLDMAN 02/26/25 96.05 292,965.01 (12,034.99) (12,034.99) 3.01 2.91 CORPORATE N DTD 02/07/2022 1.746%02/06/2026 STATE STREET CORP(CALLABLE) 857477BR3 2,000,000.00 GOLDMAN 02/26/25 96.05 1,921,082.00 6,222.00 2,332.36 3.01 2.91 CORPORATE N DTD 02/07/2022 1.746%02/06/2026 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC CORPORATE 38141GXS8 1,900,000.00 MERRILL 90.99 1,728,798.60 (175,077.40) (174,015.28) 3.55 3.53 NOTES DTD 02/12/2021 0.855%02/12/2026 BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTES 06051GKM0 2,000,000.00 DEUTSCH 96.93 1,938,664.00 (20,036.00) (21,545.21) 3.52 4.27 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/22/2022 3.384%04/02/2026 JPMORGAN CHASE&CO(CALLABLE) 46647PCZ7 1,100,000.00 CITIGRP 04/26/25 98.54 1,083,892.70 (16,745.30) (16,732.55) 2.67 4.50 CORPORATE DTD 04/26/2022 4.080%04/26/2026 IBM CORP 459200JZ5 1,675,000.00 MORGAN_ 97.59 1,634,590.63 (210,271.12) (180,458.65) 3.65 3.98 DTD 05/15/2019 3.300%05/15/2026 ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC(CALLABLE) 04636NAA1 1,675,000.00 MORGAN_ 04/28/26 90.23 1,511,422.85 (172,672.40) (171,060.11) 3.74 3.92 CORP DTD 05/28/2021 1.200%05/28/2026 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 89236TJK2 1,105,000.00 JPM_CHA 90.38 998,657.01 (103,889.89) (104,300.39) 3.88 3.76 CORPORATE NOTES DTD 06/18/2021 1.125%06/18/2026 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES 61761J3R8 1,000,000.00 SUSQ 95.30 952,953.00 (109,367.00) (100,706.43) 3.80 4.40 DTD 07/25/2016 3.125%07/27/2026 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATE 02665WDZ1 2,000,000.00 RBC 90.05 1,800,960.00 (169,780.00) (173,309.35) 4.07 3.90 NOTES DTD 09/09/2021 1.300%09/09/2026 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE CORPORATE 14913R209 2,000,000.00 LOOP 90.14 1,802,714.00 (164,926.00) (168,818.10) 4.10 3.70 NOTES DTD 09/14/2021 1.150%09/14/2026 JPMORGAN CHASE&CO CORP NOTES 46625HRV4 1,000,000.00 SUSQ 07/01/26 95.42 954,203.00 (103,337.00) (95,218.48) 3.77 4.13 DTD 07/21/2016 2.950%10/01/2026 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 23 Page 69 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt Corporate Note JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP CORPORATE 24422EWA3 2,000,000.00 JPM_CHA 91.16 1,823,216.00 (165,504.00) (166,549.13) 4.33 3.84 NOTES DTD 01/10/2022 1.700%01/11/2027 TARGET CORP CORPORATE NOTES 87612EBM7 355,000.00 CITIGRP 92.59 328,686.34 (25,710.16) (25,762.64) 4.32 3.74 DTD 01/24/2022 1.950%01/15/2027 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL(CALLABLE) 438516CE4 1,600,000.00 MORGAN_ 02/01/27 88.81 1,421,016.00 (90,888.00) (96,502.91) 4.46 3.73 CORP DTD 08/16/2021 1.100%03/01/2027 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP NOTES 89788MAD4 2,100,000.00 GOLDMAN 03/02/26 89.92 1,888,311.60 (61,496.40) (69,423.20) 3.58 3.63 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/02/2021 1.267%03/02/2027 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP NOTES 808513BY0 2,000,000.00 CSFB 02/03/27 93.14 1,862,896.00 (35,304.00) (38,929.44) 4.32 4.07 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/03/2022 2.450%03/03/2027 HOME DEPOT INC(CALLABLE)CORPORATE 437076CN0 2,000,000.00 SCOTIA 03/15/27 96.15 1,922,954.00 (13,146.00) (14,990.98) 4.47 3.76 NOTE DTD 03/28/2022 2.875%04/15/2027 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES 61772BAB9 500,000.00 MERRILL 05/04/26 88.74 443,693.00 (9,132.00) (9,685.76) 3.73 4.18 (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2021 1.593%05/04/2027 NORTHERN TRUST CORP NOTE(CALLABLE) 665859AW4 1,595,000.00 JPM_CHA 04/10/27 100.53 1,603,383.32 (7,024.38) (6,594.96) 4.37 3.88 DTD 05/10/2022 4.000%05/10/2027 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC CORPORATE 91324PEG3 400,000.00 MERRILL 99.91 399,644.00 (140.00) (144.98) 4.49 3.72 NOTES DTD 05/20/2022 3.700%05/15/2027 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC CORPORATE 91324PEG3 1,400,000.00 JPM_CHA 99.91 1,398,754.00 (13,734.00) (13,560.94) 4.49 3.72 NOTES DTD 05/20/2022 3.700%05/15/2027 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK/NY CORPORATE 63254ABE7 3,000,000.00 JPM_CHA 98.61 2,958,330.00 (15,660.00) (15,916.96) 4.53 4.22 NOTES DTD 06/09/2022 3.905%06/09/2027 Security Type Sub-Total 58,860,000.00 55,973,715.87 (3,058,966.28) (2,849,694.46) 3.22 3.71 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 24 Page 70 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt Certificate of Deposit- FDIC Insured WELLS FARGO BANK NA 949763S64 245,000.00 NEW ACC 99.91 244,784.40 (215.60) (215.60) 0.58 2.05 DTD 01/29/2020 1.900%01/30/2023 MORGAN STANLEY PVT BANK 61760A607 245,000.00 NEW ACC 99.88 244,712.37 (287.63) (287.63) 0.58 2.05 DTD 01/30/2020 1.850%01/30/2023 ENERBANK USA 29278TOD5 245,000.00 NEW ACC 94.75 232,148.53 (12,851.47) (12,851.47) 2.06 3.07 DTD 07/24/2020 0.450%07/24/2024 CHIPPEWA VALLEY BANK 169894AT9 245,000.00 NEW ACC 91.86 225,053.82 (19,946.18) (19,946.18) 3.06 3.28 DTD 07/29/2020 0.500%07/29/2025 MEDALLION BANK UTAH 58404DH07 245,000.00 NEW ACC 91.99 225,380.65 (19,619.35) (19,619.35) 3.06 3.28 DTD 07/30/2020 0.550%07/30/2025 Security Type Sub-Total 1,225,000.00 1,172,079.77 (52,920.23) (52,920.23) 1.82 2.72 Certificate of Deposit TORONTO DOMINION BANK NY CERT 89114WXU4 3.000,000.00 TD 99.02 2,970,576.34 (29,423.66) (29,423.66) 0.90 3.92 DEPOS DTD 05/23/2022 2.800%05/19/2023 Security Type Sub-Total 3,000,000.00 2,970,576.34 (29,423.66) (29,423.66) 0.90 3.92 Asset-Backed Security MBALT 2021-A A3 58770GAC4 163,054.31 MITSU 98.89 161,252.01 (1,785.82) (1.793.73) 0.49 0.97 DTD 01/27/2021 0.250%01/16/2024 HALST 2021-A A4 44891TAD8 280,000.00 SOCGEN 97.64 273,387.46 (6,589.24) (6.597.85) 0.81 1.40 DTD 01/20/2021 0.420%12/16/2024 GMALT 2021-1 A4 36261RAD0 515,000.00 RBC 97.47 501,956.54 (12.965.70) (12.991.96) 0.90 1.31 DTD 02/24/2021 0.330%02/20/2025 HAROT 2021-1 A3 43813GAC5 530,000.00 3PM_CHA 97.66 517,571.77 (12,418.53) (12,421.68) 0.79 1.12 DTD 02/24/2021 0.270%04/21/2025 HART 2021-A A3 44933LAC7 540,000.00 BARCLAY 96.85 523,001.77 (16.941.42) (16.956.64) 1.02 1.38 DTD 04/28/2021 0.380%09/15/2025 GMCAR 2021-1 A3 36261LAC5 375,000.00 DEUTSCH 97.69 366,318.98 (8,621.32) (8.639.51) 0.74 1.07 DTD 01/20/2021 0.350%10/16/2025 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 25 Page 71 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt Asset-Backed Security KCOT 2021-2A A3 50117XAE2 925,000.00 MITSU 94.17 871,096.90 (53,868.23) (53,875.72) 1.76 2.36 DTD 07/28/2021 0.560%11/17/2025 CARMX 2021-1 A3 14316NAC3 120,000.00 MITSU 97.48 116,976.60 (2,999.69) (3,006.60) 0.75 1.08 DTD 01/27/2021 0.340%12/15/2025 HAROT 2021-4 A3 43815GAC3 745,000.00 MERRILL 95.54 711,781.79 (33,061.16) (33,083.80) 1.67 2.18 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880%01/21/2026 CARMX 2021-2 A3 143140AC8 810,000.00 MERRILL 97.08 786,320.06 (23,505.39) (23,548.56) 0.94 1.35 DTD 04/21/2021 0.520%02/17/2026 CARMX 2021-3 A3 14317DAC4 1,530,000.00 RBC 96.09 1,470,164.76 (59,583.56) (59,631.27) 1.24 1.57 DTD 07/28/2021 0.550%06/15/2026 VALET 2021-1 A3 92868KAC7 1,025,000.00 WELLS_F 95.89 982,837.86 (42,121.96) (42,126.82) 1.57 2.10 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020%06/22/2026 HART 2022-A A3 448977AD0 1,500,000.00 MERRILL 97.07 1,456,100.70 (43,841.55) (43,845.24) 2.00 2.95 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220%10/15/2026 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 380146AC4 570,000.00 BNP_PAR 95.57 544,730.70 (25,219.77) (25,224.35) 1.85 2.33 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260%11/16/2026 COMET 2021-A3 A3 14041NFY2 1,865,000.00 BARCLAY 94.55 1,763,378.57 (101,364.43) (101,394.64) 2.31 2.35 DTD 11/30/2021 1.040%11/16/2026 Security Type Sub-Total 11,493,054.31 11,046,876.47 (444,887.77) (445,138.37) 1.53 1.97 Managed Account Sub-Total 323,393,054.31 308,311,921.22 (16,671,952.43) (14,944,600.63) 2.42 3.11 Securities Sub-Total $323,393,054.31 $308,311,921.22 ($16,671,952.43) ($14,944,600.63) 2.42 3.11% Accrued Interest $910,771.58 Total Investments $309,222,692.80 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 26 Page 72 pfml asset management Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Transaction Type Principal Accrued Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Trade Settle Security Description CUSIP Par Proceeds Interest Total Cost Amort Cost Method BUY 06/02/22 06/06/22 US TREASURY NOTES 912828V98 3,725,000.00 (3,611,794.92) (25,699.41) (3,637,494.33) DTD 02/15/2017 2.250%02/15/2027 06/02/22 06/06/22 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 91324PEG3 1,400,000.00 (1,412,488.00) (2,302.22) (1,414,790.22) CORPORATE NOTES DTD 05/20/2022 3.700%05/15/2027 06/02/22 06/06/22 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CER8 1,430,000.00 (1,425,866.41) (586.07) (1,426,452.48) DTD 05/31/2022 2.500%05/31/2024 06/08/22 06/09/22 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CEK3 5,000,000.00 (4,977,734.38) (13,586.96) (4,991,321.34) DTD 04/30/2022 2.500%04/30/2024 06/08/22 06/09/22 US TREASURY NOTES 912828U24 3,000,000.00 (2,870,390.63) (4,076.09) (2,874,466.72) DTD 11/15/2016 2.000%11/15/2026 06/08/22 06/09/22 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBA8 1,000,000.00 (963,359.38) (604.40) (963,963.78) DTD 12/15/2020 0.125%12/15/2023 06/08/22 06/10/22 JPMORGAN CHASE&CO(CALLABLE) 46647PCZ7 1,100,000.00 (1,100,638.00) (5,485.33) (1,106,123.33) CORPORATE DTD 04/26/2022 4.080%04/26/2026 06/08/22 06/10/22 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES 61772BAB9 500,000.00 (452,825.00) (796.50) (453,621.50) (CALLABLE) DTD 04/22/2021 1.593%05/04/2027 06/09/22 06/13/22 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK/NY 63254ABE7 3,000,000.00 (2,973,990.00) (1,301.67) (2,975,291.67) CORPORATE NOTES DTD 06/09/2022 3.905%06/09/2027 Transaction Type Sub-Total 20,155,000.00 (19,789,086.72) (54,438.65) (19,843,525.37) INTEREST 06/01/22 06/01/22 MONEY MARKET FUND MONEY0002 0.00 0.00 318.09 318.09 06/15/22 06/15/22 HART 2021-A A3 44933LAC7 540,000.00 0.00 171.00 171.00 DTD 04/28/2021 0.380%09/15/2025 06/15/22 06/15/22 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZU7 6,500,000.00 0.00 8,125.00 8,125.00 DTD 06/15/2020 0.250%06/15/2023 06/15/22 06/15/22 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBA8 1,000,000.00 0.00 625.00 625.00 DTD 12/15/2020 0.125%12/15/2023 06/15/22 06/15/22 CARMX 2021-1 A3 14316NAC3 120,000.00 0.00 34.00 34.00 DTD 01/27/2021 0.340%12/15/2025 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 27 Page 73 pfml asset management Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Transaction Type Principal Accrued Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Trade Settle Security Description CUSIP Par Proceeds Interest Total Cost Amort Cost Method INTEREST 06/15/22 06/15/22 KCOT 2021-2A A3 50117XAE2 925,000.00 0.00 431.67 431.67 DTD 07/28/2021 0.560%11/17/2025 06/15/22 06/15/22 HALST 2021-A A4 44891TAD8 280,000.00 0.00 98.00 98.00 DTD 01/20/2021 0.420%12/16/2024 06/15/22 06/15/22 COMET 2021-A3 A3 14041NFY2 1,865,000.00 0.00 1,616.33 1,616.33 DTD 11/30/2021 1.040%11/16/2026 06/15/22 06/15/22 HART 2022-A A3 448977AD0 1,500,000.00 0.00 2,775.00 2,775.00 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220%10/15/2026 06/15/22 06/15/22 MBALT 2021-A A3 58770GAC4 178,149.89 0.00 37.11 37.11 DTD 01/27/2021 0.250%01/16/2024 06/15/22 06/15/22 CARMX 2021-2 A3 143140AC8 810,000.00 0.00 351.00 351.00 DTD 04/21/2021 0.520%02/17/2026 06/15/22 06/15/22 CARMX 2021-3 A3 14317DAC4 1,530,000.00 0.00 701.25 701.25 DTD 07/28/2021 0.550%06/15/2026 06/16/22 06/16/22 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 380146AC4 570,000.00 0.00 598.50 598.50 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260%11/16/2026 06/16/22 06/16/22 GMCAR 2021-1 A3 36261LAC5 375,000.00 0.00 109.38 109.38 DTD 01/20/2021 0.350%10/16/2025 06/17/22 06/17/22 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G04Z3 7,895,000.00 0.00 19,737.50 19,737.50 DTD 06/19/2020 0.500%06/17/2025 06/18/22 06/18/22 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 89236TJK2 1,105,000.00 0.00 6,215.63 6,215.63 CORPORATE NOTES DTD 06/18/2021 1.125%06/18/2026 06/20/22 06/20/22 VALET 2021-1 A3 92868KAC7 1,025,000.00 0.00 871.25 871.25 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020%06/22/2026 06/20/22 06/20/22 GMALT 2021-1 A4 36261RA00 515,000.00 0.00 141.63 141.63 DTD 02/24/2021 0.330%02/20/2025 06/21/22 06/21/22 HAROT 2021-1 A3 43813GAC5 530,000.00 0.00 119.25 119.25 DTD 02/24/2021 0.270%04/21/2025 06/21/22 06/21/22 HAROT 2021-4 A3 43815GAC3 745,000.00 0.00 546.33 546.33 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880%01/21/2026 06/24/22 06/24/22 ENERBANK USA 29278T0D5 245,000.00 0.00 93.64 93.64 DTD 07/24/2020 0.450%07/24/2024 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 28 Page 74 pfml asset management Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Transaction Type Principal Accrued Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Trade Settle Security Description CUSIP Par Proceeds Interest Total Cost Amort Cost Method INTEREST 06/29/22 06/29/22 WELLS FARGO BANK NA 949763S64 245,000.00 0.00 395.36 395.36 DTD 01/29/2020 1.900%01/30/2023 06/29/22 06/29/22 CHIPPEWA VALLEY BANK 169894AT9 245,000.00 0.00 104.04 104.04 DTD 07/29/2020 0.500%07/29/2025 06/30/22 06/30/22 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CD01 1,625,000.00 0.00 10,156.25 10,156.25 DTD 12/31/2021 1.250%12/31/2026 06/30/22 06/30/22 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBC4 3,900,000.00 0.00 7,312.50 7,312.50 DTD 12/31/2020 0.375%12/31/2025 06/30/22 06/30/22 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDR9 8,500,000.00 0.00 31,875.00 31,875.00 DTD 12/31/2021 0.750%12/31/2023 06/30/22 06/30/22 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YY0 1,000,000.00 0.00 8,750.00 8,750.00 DTD 12/31/2019 1.750%12/31/2024 06/30/22 06/30/22 MEDALLION BANK UTAH 58404DH07 245,000.00 0.00 114.45 114.45 DTD 07/30/2020 0.550%07/30/2025 06/30/22 06/30/22 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286Z8 5,150,000.00 0.00 45,062.50 45,062.50 DTD 06/30/2019 1.750%06/30/2024 Transaction Type Sub-Total 49,163,149.89 0.00 147,486.66 147,486.66 PAYDOWNS 06/15/22 06/15/22 MBALT 2021-A A3 58770GAC4 15,095.58 15,095.58 0.00 15,095.58 1.53 0.00 DTD 01/27/2021 0.250%01/16/2024 Transaction Type Sub-Total 15,095.58 15,095.58 0.00 15,095.58 1.53 0.00 SELL 06/02/22 06/06/22 US TREASURY NOTES 9128283U2 1,400,000.00 1,404,867.19 11,573.20 1,416,440.39 (62,234.37) (15,129.41) FIFO DTD 01/31/2018 2.375%01/31/2023 06/02/22 06/06/22 APPLE INC CORPORATE NOTES 037833DV9 1,440,000.00 1,420,041.60 750.00 1,420,791.60 (24,696.00) (21,425.11) FIFO DTD 05/11/2020 0.750%05/11/2023 06/02/22 06/06/22 APPLE INC GLOBAL NOTES 037833AK6 3,390,000.00 3,392,576.40 7,458.00 3,400,034.40 44,002.20 11,981.02 FIFO DTD 05/03/2013 2.400%05/03/2023 Transaction Type Sub-Total 6,230,000.00 6,217,485.19 19,781.20 6,237,266.39 (42,928.17) (24,573.50) PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 29 Page 75 pfml asset management Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- Transaction Type Principal Accrued Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Trade Settle Security Description CUSIP Par Proceeds Interest Total Cost Amort Cost Method Managed Account Sub-Total (13,556,505.95) 112,829.21 (13,443,676.74) (42,926.64) (24,573.50) Total Security Transactions ($13,556,505.95) $112,829.21 ($13,443,676.74) ($42,926.64) ($24,573.50) PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340000 Page 30 Page 76 City of Rancho Cucamonga Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents For the Month Ended 6/30/2022 Trustee and/or Purchase Maturity Cost Bond Issue/Description Paying Agent Account Name Trust Account# Fund Investment Date Date* Yield Value CFD 2003-01 Improvement Area 1(2013) Wells Fargo Reserve Fund 865 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% $ 1,417,325.23 Agency Project 614 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% $ 77,833.55 Cultural Center Fund 615 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% $ 191,897.90 Bond Fund 864 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% $ 71.87 Developer Project 614 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% $ 98,120.04 Special Tax 864 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% $ 0.55 $ 1,785,249.14 CFD 2003-01 Improvement Area 2(2013) Wells Fargo Bond Fund 866 Money Market Fund 12/1/2013 N/A 0.01% $ 6.77 Reserve Fund 867 Money Market Fund 12/1/2013 N/A 0.01% $ 132,504.11 Special Tax Fund 866 Money Market Fund 12/1/2013 N/A 0.01% $ 0.09 $ 132,510.97 CFD No 2004-01 Rancho Etiwanda Series Wells Fargo Admin Expense Fund Money Market Fund N/A 0.01% $ - Bond Fund 820 Money Market Fund N/A 0.01% 60.74 Reserve Fund 821 Money Market Fund N/A 0.01% 1,187,638.53 Special Tax Fund 820 Money Market Fund N/A 1.05 Project Fund 617 Money Market Fund N/A 44,993.53 $ 1,232,693.85 2014 Rancho Summit Wells Fargo Cost of Issuance Fund Money Market Fund N/A $ - Bond Fund 858 Money Market Fund N/A 1,290.08 Reserve Fund 859 Money Market Fund N/A 259,536.55 Sepcial Tax Fund 858 Money Market Fund N/A 0.20 Rebate Fund Money Market Fund N/A - Redemption Fund Money Market Fund N/A - Prepayment Fund Money Market Fund N/A - $ 260,826.83 2019 Lease Revenue Bonds Wells Fargo Bond Fund 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A $ (0.00) Interest 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A 0.00 Principal 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A 0.00 Acquisition and Construciton-Series A 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A - Acquisition and Construciton-Series B 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A - Cost of Issuance 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A - $ 0.00 CFD No.2000-01 South Etiwanda Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2000-1 AGY 7/30/2015 N/A $ - Special Tax Fund 852 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.05 Bond Fund 852 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.06 Prepayment Fund Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A - Reserve Fund 853 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 22,758.05 $ 22,758.16 I:IFINANCEISALINAIFiscal Agent StmtslFiscal Agent Statements Workbook Template.xlsx Summary Report Page 1     Page 77 City of Rancho Cucamonga Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents For the Month Ended 6/30/2022 Trustee and/or Purchase Maturity Cost Bond Issue/Description Paying Agent Account Name Trust Account# Fund Investment Date Date* Yield Value CFD No.2000-02 Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2000-2 AGY Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A $ - Special Tax Fund 856 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A $ 0.51 Bond Fund 856 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A $ 0.46 Prepayment Fund Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A $ - Reserve Fund 857 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 208,973.93 $ 208,974.90 CFD No.2001-01 IA 1&2,Series A Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2001-1 AGY Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A $ - Special Tax Fund 860 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.51 Bond Fund 860 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.98 Prepayment Fund Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A - Reserve Fund 861 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 303,645.68 $ 303,647.17 CFD No.2001-01 IA3,Series B Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2001-1 AGY Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A $ - Special Tax Fund 862 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.11 Bond Fund 862 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.03 Prepayment Fund Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A - Reserve Fund 863 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 29,480.69 $ 29,480.83 CFD No.2006-01 Vintner's Grove Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2006-1 AGY Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A $ - Special Tax Fund 869 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 6.15 Bond Fund 869 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.11 Prepayment Fund Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A - Reserve Fund 870 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 130,512.98 $ 130,519.24 CFD No.2006-02 Amador on Rt.66 Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2006-2 AGY Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A $ - Special Tax Fund 871 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 3.70 Bond Fund 871 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.08 Prepayment Fund Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A - Reserve Fund 872 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 78,309.31 $ 78,313.09 4,184,974.18 TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS WITH FISCAL AGENTS $ 4,184,974.18 *Note: These investments are money market accounts which have no stated maturity date as they may be liquidated upon demand. I:IFINANCEISALINAIFiscal Agent StmtslFiscal Agent Statements Workbook Template.xlsx Summary Report Page 2     Page 78 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Portfolio Summary RANCHO June 30, 2022 CUCAMONGA Cash Dividends Closing Portfolio Holdings and Income Market Value PFM Managed Account $ 25,597.35 $ 58,731,780.93 PFM Cash Balance - 212,026.04 State Pool - 24,816,573.31 Passbook/Checking Accounts - 560,326.53 Total $ 25,597.35 $ 84,320,706.81 I certify that this report accurately reflects all District pooled investments and is in conformity with the investment policy adopted June 16, 2022. A copy of the investment policy is available in the Finance Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months'estimated expenditures. (CL � 1� Z4JzZ- Lori E. Sassoon,Treasurer ate ATTACHMENT 2     Page 79 pfml asset management Account Statement Consolidated Summary Statement For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Portfolio Summary Investment Allocation Cash Dividends Closing Portfolio Holdings and Income Market Value Investment Type Closing Market Value Percent PFMAM Managed Account 25,597.35 58,731,780.93 Asset-Backed Security 545,555.62 0.65 Local Agency Investment Fund 0.00 24,816,573.31 Corporate Note 7,794,169.39 9.27 Passbook/Checking Accounts 0.00 560,326.53 Certificate of Deposit- FDIC Insured 457,529.18 0.54 Supra-National Agency Bond/ Note 1,887,192.62 2.24 Total $25,597.35 $84,108,680.77 U.S.Treasury Bond/ Note 48,047,334.12 57.12 Local Agency Investment Fund 24,816,573.31 29.51 Passbook/Checking Accounts 560,326.53 0.67 Total $84,108,680.77 100.00% Maturity Distribution(Fixed Income Holdings) Sector Allocation Portfolio Holdings Closing Market Value Percent ABS° Passbook/Checking 0.65/o Under 30 days 25,376,899.84 30.17 Accounts Corporate Note 31 to 60 days 0.00 0.00 0.67% 9.27% Local Agency Cert of Deposit- 61 to 90 days 0.00 0.00 Investment FundIII IIIIAIFDIC 91 to 180 days 832,256.21 0.99 29.51% 0.54% Bon 181 days to 1 year 5,156,723.56 6.13 Supra-National g y d/Note Aenc 1 to 2 years 16,657,801.32 19.81 2.24% 2 to 3 years 14,826,196.84 17.63 WO 3 to 4 years 12,215,818.00 14.52 4 to 5 years 9,042,985.00 10.75 Over 5 years 0.00 0.00 US TSY Bond/Note Total $84,108,680.77 100.000/0 57.12% Weighted Average Days to Maturity 652 PFM Asset Management LLC Summary Page 1 Page 80 pfml asset management Managed Account Summary Statement For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Transaction Summary-Managed Account Cash Transactions Summary- Managed Account Opening Market Value $54,254,841.16 Maturities/Calls 0.00 Maturities/Calls 0.00 Sale Proceeds 402,799.60 Principal Dispositions (401,484.38) Coupon/Interest/Dividend Income 38,975.41 Principal Acquisitions 5,380,239.95 Principal Payments 0.00 Unsettled Trades 0.00 Security Purchases (5,393,808.23) Change in Current Value (501,815.80) Net Cash Contribution (0.01) Reconciling Transactions 0.00 Closing Market Value $58,731,780.93 Earnings Reconciliation(Cash Basis)- Managed Account Cash Balance Interest/Dividends/Coupons Received 40,290.63 Closing Cash Balance $212,026.04 Less Purchased Interest Related to Interest/Coupons (13,568.28) Plus Net Realized Gains/Losses (1,125.00) Total Cash Basis Earnings $25,597.35 Earnings Reconciliation(Accrual Basis) Total Ending Amortized Value of Securities 60,753,400.24 Ending Accrued Interest 144,416.80 Plus Proceeds from Sales 402,799.60 Plus Proceeds of Maturities/Calls/Principal Payments 0.00 Plus Coupons/Dividends Received 38,975.41 Less Cost of New Purchases (5,393,808.23) Less Beginning Amortized Value of Securities (55,760,431.87) Less Beginning Accrued Interest (106,134.52) Total Accrual Basis Earnings $79,217.43 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 1 Page 81 pfml asset management Portfolio Summary and Statistics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Account Summary Sector Allocation Description Par Value Market Value Percent U.S.Treasury Bond/ Note 50,230,000.00 48,047,334.12 81.81 ABS 0.93°/o Supra-National Agency Bond/ Note 2,060,000.00 1,887,192.62 3.21 Cert of Deposit Corporate Note 8,150,000.00 7,794,169.39 13.270 FDIC Certificate of Deposit- FDIC Insured 490,000.00 457,529.18 0.78 0.78% Asset-Backed Security 570,000.00 545,555.62 0.93 Corporate Note 13.27/o Managed Account Sub-Total 61,500,000.00 58,731,780.93 100.00% Supra-National Accrued Interest 144,416.80 Agency Bond/Note Total Portfolio 61,500,000.00 58,876,197.73 3.21°i° Unsettled Trades 0.00 0.00 US TSY Bond/Note 81.81% Maturity Distribution Characteristics 28.36% Yield to Maturity at Cost 1.62% 25.24% Yield to Maturity at Market 3.12% 20.80% Weighted Average Days to Maturity 934 15.40% 8.78% 1.42% 0.00% 0-6 Months 6-12 Months 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years Over 5 Years PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 2 Page 82 pfml asset management Managed Account Issuer Summary For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Issuer Summary Credit Quality(S&P Ratings) Market Value Issuer of Holdings Percent A AMAZON.COM INC 340,994.25 0.58 NR 3.52% AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 471,828.05 0.80 0.89% A+ AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE 180,096.00 0.31 BBB+ \i llit 1'77" ASTRAZENECA PLC 135,351.30 0.23 2 28% A- o AAA 4.00/o BANK OF AMERICA CO 410,348.77 0.70 4.03% AA BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC 259,876.10 0.44 AA- 1.02% CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP 170,192.03 0.29 0.67% CATERPILLAR INC 438,270.80 0.75 CHARLES SCHWAB 279,434.40 0.48 CITIGROUP INC 532,945.86 0.91 DEERE&COMPANY 182,321.60 0.31 ENERBANK USA 232,148.53 0.40 GM FINANCIAL CONSUMER AUTOMOBILE TRUST 57,340.07 0.10 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 333,490.02 0.57 81.82%2% HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 66,878.83 0.11 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL 248,677.80 0.42 HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 327,868.53 0.56 HYUNDAI AUTO RECEIVABLES 150,463.74 0.26 IBM CORP 262,092.63 0.45 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 345,062.97 0.59 INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV 1,542,129.65 2.63 JP MORGAN CHASE&CO 330,070.30 0.56 MEDALLION BANK UTAH 225,380.65 0.38 MORGAN STANLEY 384,417.29 0.65 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD 394,444.00 0.67 NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES CO FINANCE CORP 74,573.33 0.13 NORTHERN TRUST 402,102.40 0.68 STATE STREET CORPORATION 321,781.24 0.55 TARGET CORP 171,287.25 0.29 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION 424,544.60 0.72 TOYOTA MOTOR CORP 325,354.32 0.55 TRUIST FIN CORP 247,278.90 0.42 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 3 Page 83 pfml asset management Managed Account Issuer Summary For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Market Value Issuer of Holdings Percent UNITED STATES TREASURY 48,047,334.12 81.80 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 314,719.65 0.54 VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA 100,680.95 0.17 Total $58,731,780.93 100.00% PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 4 Page 84 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAX9 840,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/25/21 05/26/21 840,164.06 0.11 88.93 840,045.09 832,256.21 DTD 11/30/2020 0.125%11/30/2022 US TREASURY NOTES 9128284L1 600,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/12/22 05/13/22 603,914.06 2.06 2,779.89 603,369.21 599,343.72 DTD 04/30/2018 2.750%04/30/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828R69 1,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/06/22 01/07/22 1,520,156.25 0.66 2,064.55 1,513,226.30 1,482,656.25 DTD 05/31/2016 1.625%05/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 9128284S6 2,295.000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/25/21 05/26/21 2,414.591.02 0.16 5,345.59 2,349,344.76 2,291.772.77 DTD 05/31/2018 2.750%05/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828535 795,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/24/22 01/25/22 801,521.48 0.80 29.70 799,556.27 782,950.82 DTD 06/30/2016 1.375%06/30/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCN9 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 08/06/21 08/09/21 998,359.38 0.21 521.41 999,101.19 970,000.00 DTD 07/31/2021 0.125%07/31/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCU3 795,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/02/21 09/03/21 793.695.70 0.21 332.15 794,235.72 769,286.68 DTD 08/31/2021 0.125%08/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CDA6 2,300,000.00 AA+ Aaa 04/21/22 04/22/22 2,228,933.59 2.45 1,445.36 2,238,391.10 2,223.812.50 DTD 09/30/2021 0.250%09/30/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDD0 795,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/01/21 11/03/21 792,764.06 0.52 502.28 793,502.20 768,044.57 DTD 10/31/2021 0.375%10/31/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDD0 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/12/22 05/13/22 971,093.75 2.40 631.79 973,736.30 966,093.80 DTD 10/31/2021 0.375%10/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 9128285P1 2,260.000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/25/21 05/26/21 2,410.342.97 0.22 5,503.35 2,344,670.28 2,256.468.75 DTD 11/30/2018 2.875%11/30/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDR9 2,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/06/22 01/07/22 1,994,921.88 0.88 40.76 1,996,151.02 1,934,375.00 DTD 12/31/2021 0.750%12/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBE0 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/17/21 11/18/21 989,492.19 0.62 576.66 992,492.52 957,187.50 DTD 01/15/2021 0.125%01/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBR1 1,500.000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/06/22 01/07/22 1,477.382.81 0.95 1,100.54 1,482,342.72 1,431.796.80 DTD 03/15/2021 0.250%03/15/2024 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 5 Page 85 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CEK3 1,870,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/01/22 06/03/22 1,868,246.88 2.55 7,876.36 1,868,317.31 1,853,637.50 DTD 04/30/2022 2.500%04/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCC3 1,975.000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/25/21 05/26/21 1,971.219.73 0.31 630.60 1,972,616.86 1,876.867.19 DTD 05/15/2021 0.250%05/15/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCG4 340,000.00 AA+ Aaa 07/26/21 07/28/21 338,990.63 0.35 37.16 339,314.63 322,362.50 DTD 06/15/2021 0.250%06/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286Z8 670,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/12/22 05/13/22 657,882.42 2.63 31.86 658,644.63 653,878.13 DTD 06/30/2019 1.750%06/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCL3 295,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/17/21 11/18/21 291,992.38 0.76 510.34 292,690.02 279,789.06 DTD 07/15/2021 0.375%07/15/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCL3 1,500.000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/06/22 01/07/22 1,475.273.44 1.04 2,594.96 1,479,976.86 1,422.656.25 DTD 07/15/2021 0.375%07/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YE4 1,665,000.00 AA+ Aaa 04/21/22 04/22/22 1,605,033.99 2.84 6,956.35 1,609,903.62 1,603,863.20 DTD 08/31/2019 1.250%08/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YV6 2,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/25/21 05/26/21 2,073,828.13 0.44 2,540.98 2,050,771.21 1,929,062.40 DTD 11/30/2019 1.500%11/30/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YY0 500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/03/22 01/05/22 510.605.47 1.03 23.78 508,884.88 484,531.25 DTD 12/31/2019 1.750%12/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YY0 1,100,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/01/22 06/03/22 1,074,046.88 2.70 52.31 1,074,818.31 1,065,968.75 DTD 12/31/2019 1.750%12/31/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDS7 2,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 04/21/22 04/22/22 1,907,265.63 2.90 10,379.83 1,913,763.53 1,906,875.00 DTD 01/15/2022 1.125%01/15/2025 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDZ1 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/12/22 05/13/22 966,679.69 2.76 5,635.36 968,297.82 960,937.50 DTD 02/15/2022 1.500%02/15/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZL7 1,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/12/22 05/13/22 932,304.69 2.77 631.79 935,367.54 927,812.50 DTD 04/30/2020 0.375%04/30/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 912828Z10 1,425,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/25/21 05/26/21 1,406,909.18 0.57 301.74 1,411,857.62 1,314,785.09 DTD 05/31/2020 0.250%05/31/2025 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 6 Page 86 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAJ0 2,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/06/22 01/07/22 2,406,054.69 1.31 2,088.99 2,418,397.35 2,288,672.00 DTD 08/31/2020 0.250%08/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAT8 1,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/12/22 05/13/22 916.132.81 2.81 421.20 919.376.29 911,093.80 DTD 10/31/2020 0.250%10/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAZ4 1,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 06/01/22 06/03/22 1,378,710.94 2.82 476.43 1,381,372.46 1,369,921.80 DTD 11/30/2020 0.375%11/30/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBH3 500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 09/01/21 09/03/21 492,910.16 0.70 782.11 494,234.83 454,531.25 DTD 01/31/2021 0.375%01/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286F2 500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/12/22 05/13/22 494,335.94 2.82 4,177.99 494,536.04 490,312.50 DTD 02/28/2019 2.500%02/28/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CBW0 700,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/25/21 05/27/21 698,660.16 0.79 884.51 698,958.07 641,593.75 DTD 04/30/2021 0.750%04/30/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 912828R36 600,000.00 AA+ Aaa 03/03/22 03/07/22 596,554.69 1.77 1,245.24 596,815.90 568,500.00 DTD 05/16/2016 1.625%05/15/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286X3 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 07/26/21 07/28/21 1,067,851.56 0.70 1,799.86 1,054,879.94 965,937.50 DTD 05/31/2019 2.125%05/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282C08 600.000.00 AA+ Aaa 01/06/22 01/07/22 585,468.75 1.44 14.27 587,024.08 550,687.50 DTD 06/30/2021 0.875%06/30/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 9128282A7 2,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 04/21/22 04/22/22 1,878,046.88 3.02 11,270.72 1,883,463.58 1,877,812.40 DTD 08/15/2016 1.500%08/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCZ2 1,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/12/22 05/13/22 1,379,472.66 2.84 3,299.18 1,383,161.50 1,369,921.80 DTD 09/30/2021 0.875%09/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDG3 310,000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/01/21 11/03/21 308,595.31 1.22 587.57 308,780.24 285,684.38 DTD 10/31/2021 1.125%10/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDG3 1,000.000.00 AA+ Aaa 11/17/21 11/18/21 993,945.31 1.25 1,895.38 994,698.80 921,562.50 DTD 10/31/2021 1.125%10/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 912828V98 500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 05/12/22 05/13/22 486,816.41 2.85 4,226.52 487,187.89 482,031.25 DTD 02/15/2017 2.250%02/15/2027 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 7 Page 87 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type Sub-Total 50,230,000.00 49,601,168.61 1.49 92,336.35 49,508,276.49 48,047,334.12 Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTER-AMERICAN DEVEL BK NOTES 4581X0DZ8 365.000.00 AAA Aaa 09/15/21 09/23/21 364.729.90 0.52 496.81 364,799.15 345,062.97 DTD 09/23/2021 0.500%09/23/2024 INTL BK RECON&DEVELOP NOTES 459058J53 1,695,000.00 AAA Aaa 05/25/21 05/26/21 1,679,728.05 0.85 4,315.19 1,683,286.48 1,542,129.65 (CALLABLE) DTD 02/10/2021 0.650%02/10/2026 Security Type Sub-Total 2,060,000.00 2,044,457.95 0.79 4,812.00 2,048,085.63 1,887,192.62 Corporate Note HSBC USA INC CORPORATE NOTES 40428HTA0 330,000.00 A- Al 05/17/22 05/24/22 329,986.80 3.75 1,271.88 329,987.49 327,868.53 DTD 05/24/2022 3.750%05/24/2024 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO CORP NOTES 025816CG2 275,000.00 BBB+ A2 11/19/21 11/23/21 284.845.00 1.14 2,883.68 282,565.11 267,858.80 (CALLABLE DTD 07/30/2019 2.500%07/30/2024 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES 61747YE04 225,000.00 A- Al 05/12/22 05/16/22 224,412.75 3.71 1,606.38 224,438.07 221,955.98 (CALLABLE) DTD 04/20/2022 3.620%04/17/2025 BANK OF NY MELLON CORP(CALLABLE) 06406RBC0 250,000.00 A Al 05/12/22 05/16/22 250,387.50 3.29 1,512.15 250,370.43 247,174.00 CORP N DTD 04/26/2022 3.350%04/25/2025 BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTES 06051GKS7 250,000.00 A- A2 05/12/22 05/16/22 250,470.00 3.77 1,707.11 250,449.89 249,665.50 (CALLABLE) DTD 04/27/2022 3.841%04/25/2025 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE CORPORATE 14913R2V8 190,000.00 A A2 05/10/22 05/13/22 189,758.70 3.44 861.33 189,769.49 189,253.30 NOTES DTD 05/13/2022 3.400%05/13/2025 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE CORPORATE 14913R2V8 250,000.00 A A2 05/12/22 05/16/22 250,500.00 3.33 1,133.34 250,478.96 249,017.50 NOTES DTD 05/13/2022 3.400%05/13/2025 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 8 Page 88 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Corporate Note CITIGROUP INC CORPORATE NOTES 172967N00 200,000.00 BBB+ A3 06/01/22 06/03/22 201,850.00 3.81 851.00 201,802.30 199,327.80 DTD 05/24/2022 4.140%05/24/2025 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP CORPORATE 63743HFE7 75,000.00 A- A2 04/27/22 05/04/22 74,979.75 3.46 409.69 74,980.78 74,573.33 NOTES DTD 05/04/2022 3.450%06/15/2025 MORGAN STANLEY CORPORATE NOTES 61746BDZ6 165,000.00 A- Al 05/25/21 05/27/21 185,034.30 1.19 2,735.10 180,336.93 162,461.31 DTD 01/27/2016 3.875%01/27/2026 STATE STREET CORP(CALLABLE) 857477BR3 35,000.00 A Al 02/02/22 02/07/22 35,000.00 1.75 244.44 35,000.00 33,618.94 CORPORATE N DTD 02/07/2022 1.746%02/06/2026 STATE STREET CORP(CALLABLE) 857477BR3 300,000.00 A Al 04/27/22 04/29/22 287,229.00 2.95 2,095.20 287,812.45 288,162.30 CORPORATE N DTD 02/07/2022 1.746%02/06/2026 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC CORP NOTES 38143U8H7 165,000.00 BBB+ A2 05/25/21 05/27/21 183,570.75 1.30 2,165.63 179,049.57 161,840.75 (CALL DTD 02/25/2016 3.750%02/25/2026 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC CORP NOTES 38143U8H7 175,000.00 BBB+ A2 04/27/22 04/29/22 174,895.00 3.77 2,296.87 174,899.73 171,649.27 (CALL DTD 02/25/2016 3.750%02/25/2026 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTES(CALLABLE) 172967NL1 175,000.00 BBB+ A3 04/27/22 04/29/22 171,647.00 3.82 1,663.28 171,795.97 169,302.18 DTD 03/17/2022 3.290%03/17/2026 JP MORGAN CORP(CALLABLE)NOTES 46625HOW3 340,000.00 A- A2 05/25/21 05/27/21 373.585.20 1.20 2,805.00 365,588.72 330,070.30 DTD 03/23/2016 3.300%04/01/2026 BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTES 06051GFX2 165,000.00 A- A2 05/25/21 05/27/21 182,902.50 1.21 1,155.00 178,897.47 160,683.27 DTD 04/19/2016 3.500%04/19/2026 CITIGROUP CORP NOTES 172967KN0 170,000.00 BBB+ A3 05/25/21 05/27/21 187,113.90 1.29 963.33 183,310.81 164,315.88 DTD 05/02/2016 3.400%05/01/2026 AMAZON.COM INC CORPORATE NOTES 023135BX3 375,000.00 AA Al 05/25/21 05/27/21 375,356.25 0.98 510.42 375,277.56 340,994.25 DTD 05/12/2021 1.000%05/12/2026 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 9 Page 89 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Corporate Note IBM CORP 459200JZ5 150,000.00 A- A3 09/01/21 09/03/21 165,211.50 1.08 632.50 162,541.73 146,381.25 DTD 05/15/2019 3.300%05/15/2026 ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC(CALLABLE) 04636NAA1 150,000.00 A- A3 09/01/21 09/03/21 150.814.50 1.08 165.00 150.670.12 135,351.30 CORP DTD 05/28/2021 1.200%05/28/2026 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP CORPORATE 89236TJK2 110,000.00 A+ Al 09/08/21 09/13/21 109,755.80 1.17 44.69 109,796.66 99,413.82 NOTES DTD 06/18/2021 1.125%06/18/2026 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP CORPORATE 89236TJK2 250,000.00 A+ Al 05/12/22 05/16/22 228,305.00 3.42 101.56 228,972.99 225,940.50 NOTES DTD 06/18/2021 1.125%06/18/2026 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATE 02665WDZ1 200,000.00 A- A3 12/01/21 12/03/21 197,074.00 1.62 808.89 197,426.94 180,096.00 NOTES DTD 09/09/2021 1.300%09/09/2026 BANK OF NY MELLON CORP CORPORATE 06406RAV9 200,000.00 A Al 12/01/21 12/03/21 195,328.00 1.55 443.33 195,880.12 177,370.60 NOTES DTD 07/27/2021 1.050%10/15/2026 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO(CALLABLE) 025816CM9 225,000.00 BBB+ A2 06/01/22 06/03/22 207,758.25 3.54 587.81 208,057.18 203,969.25 CORPORATE DTD 11/04/2021 1.650%11/04/2026 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP CORPORATE 24422EWA3 200,000.00 A A2 01/11/22 01/13/22 198,872.00 1.82 1,615.00 198,976.51 182,321.60 NOTES DTD 01/10/2022 1.700%01/11/2027 TARGET CORP CORPORATE NOTES 87612EBM7 35,000.00 A A2 01/19/22 01/24/22 34,940.50 1.99 297.65 34,945.67 32,405.70 DTD 01/24/2022 1.950%01/15/2027 TARGET CORP CORPORATE NOTES 87612EBM7 150,000.00 A A2 03/24/22 03/28/22 145,041.00 2.69 1,275.62 145,309.59 138,881.55 DTD 01/24/2022 1.950%01/15/2027 IBM CORP CORPORATE NOTES 459200KM2 125,000.00 A- A3 03/24/22 03/28/22 120,833.75 2.94 1,084.72 121,056.23 115,711.38 DTD 02/09/2022 2.200%02/09/2027 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 10 Page 90 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Corporate Note HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL(CALLABLE) 438516CE4 280,000.00 A A2 03/03/22 03/07/22 264,583.20 2.27 1,026.67 265,565.81 248,677.80 CORP DTD 08/16/2021 1.100%03/01/2027 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP NOTES 89788MAD4 275,000.00 A- A3 03/24/22 03/28/22 255.332.00 2.83 1,151.74 256,370.03 247,278.90 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/02/2021 1.267%03/02/2027 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP NOTES 808513BY0 300,000.00 A A2 04/27/22 04/29/22 284,730.00 3.60 2,409.17 285,273.82 279,434.40 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/03/2022 2.450%03/03/2027 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY CORP NOTES 084664CZ2 275,000.00 AA Aa2 03/24/22 03/28/22 269,205.75 2.76 1,862.36 269,509.36 259,876.10 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/15/2022 2.300%03/15/2027 NORTHERN TRUST CORP NOTE(CALLABLE) 665859AW4 400,000.00 A+ A2 05/12/22 05/16/22 405,484.00 3.70 2,266.67 405,343.07 402,102.40 DTD 05/10/2022 4.000%05/10/2027 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC CORPORATE 91324PEG3 65,000.00 A+ A3 05/17/22 05/20/22 64,964.90 3.71 273.90 64,965.71 64,942.15 NOTES DTD 05/20/2022 3.700%05/15/2027 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC CORPORATE 91324PEG3 250,000.00 A+ A3 06/01/22 06/03/22 253,095.00 3.43 1,053.48 253,047.04 249,777.50 NOTES DTD 05/20/2022 3.700%05/15/2027 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK/NY CORPORATE 63254ABE7 400,000.00 AA- Aa3 06/09/22 06/13/22 396,532.00 4.10 954.56 396,566.26 394,444.00 NOTES DTD 06/09/2022 3.905%06/09/2027 Security Type Sub-Total 8,150,000.00 8,161,385.55 2.71 46,926.15 8,137,086.57 7,794,169.39 Certificate of Deposit- FDIC Insured ENERBANK USA 29278TOD5 245,000.00 NR NR 07/24/20 07/24/20 245,000.00 0.45 21.14 245,000.00 232,148.53 DTD 07/24/2020 0.450%07/24/2024 MEDALLION BANK UTAH 58404DH07 245,000.00 NR NR 07/30/20 07/30/20 245,000.00 0.55 3.69 245,000.00 225,380.65 DTD 07/30/2020 0.550%07/30/2025 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 11 Page 91 pfml asset management Managed Account Detail of Securities Held For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value Security Type Sub-Total 490,000.00 490,000.00 0.50 24.83 490,000.00 457,529.18 Asset-Backed Security HAROT 2021-4 A3 43815GAC3 70,000.00 NR Aaa 11/16/21 11/24/21 69,985.24 0.89 17.11 69,987.37 66,878.83 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880%01/21/2026 VALET 2021-1 A3 92868KAC7 105,000.00 AAA Aaa 12/07/21 12/13/21 104,995.88 1.02 32.73 104,996.38 100,680.95 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020%06/22/2026 HART 2022-A A3 448977AD0 155,000.00 AAA NR 03/09/22 03/16/22 154,994.03 2.22 152.93 154,994.41 150,463.74 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220%10/15/2026 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 380146AC4 60,000.00 AAA NR 01/11/22 01/19/22 59,994.79 1.26 31.50 59,995.27 57,340.07 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260%11/16/2026 COMET 2021-A3 A3 14041NFY2 180,000.00 AAA NR 11/18/21 11/30/21 179,975.20 1.04 83.20 179,978.12 170,192.03 DTD 11/30/2021 1.040%11/16/2026 Security Type Sub-Total 570,000.00 569,945.14 1.37 317.47 569,951.55 545,555.62 Managed Account Sub-Total 61,500,000.00 60,866,957.25 1.62 144,416.80 60,753,400.24 58,731,780.93 Securities Sub-Total $61,500,000.00 $60,866,957.25 1.62% $144,416.80 $60,753,400.24 $58,731,780.93 Accrued Interest $144,416.80 Total Investments $58,876,197.73 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 12 Page 92 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAX9 840,000.00 HSBC 99.08 832,256.21 (7,907.85) (7,788.88) 0.42 2.35 DTD 11/30/2020 0.125%11/30/2022 US TREASURY NOTES 9128284L1 600,000.00 NOMURA 99.89 599,343.72 (4,570.34) (4,025.49) 0.83 2.88 DTD 04/30/2018 2.750%04/30/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828R69 1,500,000.00 CITIGRP 98.84 1,482,656.25 (37,500.00) (30,570.05) 0.91 2.91 DTD 05/31/2016 1.625%05/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 9128284S6 2,295,000.00 HSBC 99.86 2,291,772.77 (122,818.25) (57,571.99) 0.91 2.90 DTD 05/31/2018 2.750%05/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 912828S35 795,000.00 NOMURA 98.48 782,950.82 (18,570.66) (16,605.45) 1.00 2.92 DTD 06/30/2016 1.375%06/30/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCN9 1,000,000.00 MERRILL 97.00 970,000.00 (28,359.38) (29,101.19) 1.08 2.95 DTD 07/31/2021 0.125%07/31/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCU3 795,000.00 CITIGRP 96.77 769,286.68 (24,409.02) (24,949.04) 1.17 2.96 DTD 08/31/2021 0.125%08/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CDA6 2,300,000.00 RBS 96.69 2,223,812.50 (5,121.09) (14,578.60) 1.25 2.97 DTD 09/30/2021 0.250%09/30/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDD0 795,000.00 CITIGRP 96.61 768,044.57 (24,719.49) (25,457.63) 1.33 2.99 DTD 10/31/2021 0.375%10/31/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDD0 1.000,000.00 BMO 96.61 966,093.80 (4,999.95) (7,642.50) 1.33 2.99 DTD 10/31/2021 0.375%10/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 9128285P1 2,260,000.00 CITIGRP 99.84 2,256,468.75 (153,874.22) (88,201.53) 1.40 2.99 DTD 11/30/2018 2.875%11/30/2023 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDR9 2.000,000.00 CITIGRP 96.72 1,934,375.00 (60,546.88) (61,776.02) 1.49 3.00 DTD 12/31/2021 0.750%12/31/2023 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBE0 1,000,000.00 JPM_CHA 95.72 957,187.50 (32,304.69) (35,305.02) 1.54 2.99 DTD 01/15/2021 0.125%01/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBR1 1,500,000.00 WELLS_F 95.45 1,431,796.80 (45,586.01) (50,545.92) 1.71 3.00 DTD 03/15/2021 0.250%03/15/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CEK3 1,870,000.00 BMO 99.13 1,853,637.50 (14,609.38) (14,679.81) 1.80 2.99 DTD 04/30/2022 2.500%04/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCC3 1,975,000.00 BARCLAY 95.03 1,876,867.19 (94,352.54) (95,749.67) 1.87 2.99 DTD 05/15/2021 0.250%05/15/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCG4 340,000.00 MERRILL 94.81 322,362.50 (16,628.13) (16,952.13) 1.95 3.00 DTD 06/15/2021 0.250%06/15/2024 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 13 Page 93 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 9128286Z8 670,000.00 CITIGRP 97.59 653,878.13 (4,004.29) (4,766.50) 1.97 3.00 DTD 06/30/2019 1.750%06/30/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCL3 295,000.00 JPM_CHA 94.84 279,789.06 (12,203.32) (12,900.96) 2.03 3.00 DTD 07/15/2021 0.375%07/15/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCL3 1,500,000.00 WELLS_F 94.84 1,422,656.25 (52,617.19) (57,320.61) 2.03 3.00 DTD 07/15/2021 0.375%07/15/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YE4 1,665,000.00 RBS 96.33 1,603,863.20 (1,170.79) (6,040.42) 2.14 3.01 DTD 08/31/2019 1.250%08/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YV6 2,000,000.00 GOLDMAN 96.45 1,929,062.40 (144,765.73) (121,708.81) 2.38 3.03 DTD 11/30/2019 1.500%11/30/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YY0 500,000.00 MORGAN_ 96.91 484,531.25 (26,074.22) (24,353.63) 2.46 3.04 DTD 12/31/2019 1.750%12/31/2024 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YY0 1,100,000.00 WELLS_F 96.91 1,065,968.75 (8,078.13) (8,849.56) 2.46 3.04 DTD 12/31/2019 1.750%12/31/2024 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDS7 2,000,000.00 MORGAN_ 95.34 1,906,875.00 (390.63) (6,888.53) 2.50 3.04 DTD 01/15/2022 1.125%01/15/2025 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDZ1 1,000,000.00 TD 96.09 960,937.50 (5,742.19) (7,360.32) 2.57 3.06 DTD 02/15/2022 1.500%02/15/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZL7 1,000,000.00 MERRILL 92.78 927,812.50 (4,492.19) (7,555.04) 2.82 3.05 DTD 04/30/2020 0.375%04/30/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 912828ZT0 1,425,000.00 WELLS_F 92.27 1,314,785.09 (92,124.09) (97,072.53) 2.91 3.04 DTD 05/31/2020 0.250%05/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CA]0 2,500,000.00 MORGAN_ 91.55 2,288,672.00 (117,382.69) (129,725.35) 3.15 3.07 DTD 08/31/2020 0.250%08/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAT8 1,000,000.00 CITIGRP 91.11 911,093.80 (5,039.01) (8,282.49) 3.32 3.08 DTD 10/31/2020 0.250%10/31/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAZ4 1,500,000.00 CITIGRP 91.33 1,369,921.80 (8,789.14) (11,450.66) 3.40 3.07 DTD 11/30/2020 0.375%11/30/2025 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CBH3 500,000.00 NOMURA 90.91 454,531.25 (38,378.91) (39,703.58) 3.56 3.07 DTD 01/31/2021 0.375%01/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286F2 500,000.00 CITIGRP 98.06 490,312.50 (4,023.44) (4,223.54) 3.50 3.06 DTD 02/28/2019 2.500%02/28/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CBW0 700,000.00 BNP_PAR 91.66 641,593.75 (57,066.41) (57,364.32) 3.78 3.07 DTD 04/30/2021 0.750%04/30/2026 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 14 Page 94 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt U.S.Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES 912828R36 600,000.00 CITIGRP 94.75 568,500.00 (28,054.69) (28,315.90) 3.76 3.07 DTD 05/16/2016 1.625%05/15/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286X3 1.000,000.00 CITIGRP 96.59 965,937.50 (101,914.06) (88,942.44) 3.77 3.05 DTD 05/31/2019 2.125%05/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCJ8 600,000.00 WELLS_F 91.78 550,687.50 (34,781.25) (36,336.58) 3.94 3.07 DTD 06/30/2021 0.875%06/30/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 9128282A7 2,000,000.00 MERRILL 93.89 1,877,812.40 (234.48) (5,651.18) 3.99 3.09 DTD 08/15/2016 1.500%08/15/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCZ2 1,500,000.00 NOMURA 91.33 1,369,921.80 (9,550.86) (13,239.70) 4.17 3.07 DTD 09/30/2021 0.875%09/30/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDG3 310,000.00 MORGAN_ 92.16 285,684.38 (22,910.93) (23,095.86) 4.23 3.07 DTD 10/31/2021 1.125%10/31/2026 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDG3 1,000,000.00 CITIGRP 92.16 921,562.50 (72,382.81) (73,136.30) 4.23 3.07 DTD 10/31/2021 1.125%10/31/2026 US TREASURY NOTES 912828V98 500,000.00 MERRILL 96.41 482,031.25 (4,785.16) (5,156.64) 4.38 3.09 DTD 02/15/2017 2.250%02/15/2027 Security Type Sub-Total 50,230,000.00 48,047,334.12 (1,553,834.49) (1,460,942.37) 2.26 3.00 Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTER-AMERICAN DEVEL BK NOTES 4581X0DZ8 365,000.00 JPM_CHA 94.54 345,062.97 (19,666.93) (19,736.18) 2.22 3.05 DTD 09/23/2021 0.500%09/23/2024 INTL BK RECON&DEVELOP NOTES 459058E3 1,695,000.00 KEYBANC 08/10/22 90.98 1,542,129.65 (137,598.40) (141,156.83) 0.15 3.32 (CALLABLE) DTD 02/10/2021 0.650%02/10/2026 Security Type Sub-Total 2,060,000.00 1,887,192.62 (157,265.33) (160,893.01) 0.52 3.27 Corporate Note HSBC USA INC CORPORATE NOTES 40428HTA0 330,000.00 HSBC 99.35 327,868.53 (2,118.27) (2,118.96) 1.85 4.11 DTD 05/24/2022 3.750%05/24/2024 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO CORP NOTES 025816CG2 275,000.00 MORGAN_ 06/30/24 97.40 267,858.80 (16.986.20) (14,706.31) 1.94 3.81 (CALLABLE DTD 07/30/2019 2.500%07/30/2024 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 15 Page 95 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt Corporate Note MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES 61747YE04 225,000.00 GOLDMAN 04/17/24 98.65 221,955.98 (2,456.77) (2,482.09) 1.74 4.14 (CALLABLE) DTD 04/20/2022 3.620%04/17/2025 BANK OF NY MELLON CORP(CALLABLE) 06406RBC0 250,000.00 MERRILL 03/25/25 98.87 247,174.00 (3,213.50) (3,196.43) 2.70 3.78 CORP N DTD 04/26/2022 3.350%04/25/2025 BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTES 06051GKS7 250,000.00 SMBC 99.87 249,665.50 (804.50) (784.39) 2.68 3.89 (CALLABLE) DTD 04/27/2022 3.841%04/25/2025 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE CORPORATE 14913R2V8 190,000.00 MERRILL 99.61 189,253.30 (505.40) (516.19) 2.75 3.54 NOTES DTD 05/13/2022 3.400%05/13/2025 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE CORPORATE 14913R2V8 250,000.00 MITSU 99.61 249,017.50 (1,482.50) (1,461.46) 2.75 3.54 NOTES DTD 05/13/2022 3.400%05/13/2025 CITIGROUP INC CORPORATE NOTES 172967N00 200,000.00 JPM_CHA 99.66 199,327.80 (2,522.20) (2,474.50) 2.75 4.26 DTD 05/24/2022 4.140%05/24/2025 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP CORPORATE 63743HFE7 75,000.00 RBC 99.43 74,573.33 (406.42) (407.45) 2.82 3.65 NOTES DTD 05/04/2022 3.450%06/15/2025 MORGAN STANLEY CORPORATE NOTES 61746BDZ6 165,000.00 BNP_PAR 98.46 162,461.31 (22,572.99) (17,875.62) 3.32 4.34 DTD 01/27/2016 3.875%01/27/2026 STATE STREET CORP(CALLABLE) 857477BR3 35,000.00 GOLDMAN 02/26/25 96.05 33,618.94 (1,381.06) (1,381.06) 3.01 2.91 CORPORATE N DTD 02/07/2022 1.746%02/06/2026 STATE STREET CORP(CALLABLE) 857477BR3 300,000.00 GOLDMAN 02/26/25 96.05 288,162.30 933.30 349.85 3.01 2.91 CORPORATE N DTD 02/07/2022 1.746%02/06/2026 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC CORP NOTES 38143U8H7 165,000.00 JPM_CHA 11/25/25 98.09 161,840.75 (21,730.00) (17,208.82) 3.18 4.32 (CALL DTD 02/25/2016 3.750%02/25/2026 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC CORP NOTES 38143U8H7 175,000.00 MKTX 11/25/25 98.09 171,649.27 (3,245.73) (3,250.46) 3.18 4.32 (CALL DTD 02/25/2016 3.750%02/25/2026 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 16 Page 96 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt Corporate Note CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTES(CALLABLE) 172967NL1 175,000.00 GOLDMAN 03/17/25 96.74 169,302.18 (2,344.82) (2,493.79) 2.59 4.25 DTD 03/17/2022 3.290%03/17/2026 JP MORGAN CORP(CALLABLE)NOTES 46625H0W3 340,000.00 JSEB 01/01/26 97.08 330,070.30 (43,514.90) (35,518.42) 3.31 4.15 DTD 03/23/2016 3.300%04/01/2026 BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTES 06051GFX2 165,000.00 FIFTH_3 97.38 160,683.27 (22,219.23) (18,214.20) 3.57 4.25 DTD 04/19/2016 3.500%04/19/2026 CITIGROUP CORP NOTES 172967KN0 170,000.00 JPM_CHA 96.66 164,315.88 (22,798.02) (18,994.93) 3.60 4.35 DTD 05/02/2016 3.400%05/01/2026 AMAZON.COM INC CORPORATE NOTES 023135BX3 375,000.00 UBS 90.93 340,994.25 (34,362.00) (34,283.31) 3.79 3.53 DTD 05/12/2021 1.000%05/12/2026 IBM CORP 459200JZ5 150,000.00 MORGAN_ 97.59 146,381.25 (18,830.25) (16,160.48) 3.65 3.98 DTD 05/15/2019 3.300%05/15/2026 ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC(CALLABLE) 04636NAA1 150,000.00 MORGAN_ 04/28/26 90.23 135,351.30 (15,463.20) (15,318.82) 3.74 3.92 CORP DTD 05/28/2021 1.200%05/28/2026 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 89236TJK2 110,000.00 JPM_CHA 90.38 99,413.82 (10,341.98) (10,382.84) 3.88 3.76 CORPORATE NOTES DTD 06/18/2021 1.125%06/18/2026 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 89236TJK2 250,000.00 JSEB 90.38 225,940.50 (2,364.50) (3,032.49) 3.88 3.76 CORPORATE NOTES DTD 06/18/2021 1.125%06/18/2026 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATE 02665WDZ1 200,000.00 RBC 90.05 180,096.00 (16,978.00) (17,330.94) 4.07 3.90 NOTES DTD 09/09/2021 1.300%09/09/2026 BANK OF NY MELLON CORP CORPORATE 06406RAV9 200,000.00 DEUTSCH 88.69 177,370.60 (17,957.40) (18,509.52) 4.19 3.94 NOTES DTD 07/27/2021 1.050%10/15/2026 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO(CALLABLE) 025816CM9 225,000.00 JSEB 10/04/26 90.65 203,969.25 (3,789.00) (4,087.93) 4.11 4.02 CORPORATE DTD 11/04/2021 1.650%11/04/2026 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP CORPORATE 24422EWA3 200,000.00 JPM_CHA 91.16 182,321.60 (16,550.40) (16,654.91) 4.33 3.84 NOTES DTD 01/10/2022 1.700%01/11/2027 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 17 Page 97 pfmI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt Corporate Note TARGET CORP CORPORATE NOTES 87612EBM7 35,000.00 CITIGRP 92.59 32,405.70 (2,534.80) (2,539.97) 4.32 3.74 DTD 01/24/2022 1.950%01/15/2027 TARGET CORP CORPORATE NOTES 87612EBM7 150,000.00 STIFEL 92.59 138,881.55 (6,159.45) (6,428.04) 4.32 3.74 DTD 01/24/2022 1.950%01/15/2027 IBM CORP CORPORATE NOTES 459200KM2 125,000.00 DEUTSCH 92.57 115,711.38 (5,122.37) (5,344.85) 4.36 3.98 DTD 02/09/2022 2.200%02/09/2027 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL(CALLABLE) 438516CE4 280,000.00 MORGAN_ 02/01/27 88.81 248,677.80 (15,905.40) (16,888.01) 4.46 3.73 CORP DTD 08/16/2021 1.100%03/01/2027 TRUIST FINANCIAL CORP NOTES 89788MAD4 275,000.00 GOLDMAN 03/02/26 89.92 247,278.90 (8,053.10) (9,091.13) 3.58 3.63 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/02/2021 1.267%03/02/2027 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP NOTES 808513BY0 300,000.00 CSFB 02/03/27 93.14 279,434.40 (5,295.60) (5,839.42) 4.32 4.07 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/03/2022 2.450%03/03/2027 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY CORP NOTES 084664CZ2 275,000.00 CITIGRP 02/15/27 94.50 259,876.10 (9,329.65) (9,633.26) 4.38 3.58 (CALLABLE) DTD 03/15/2022 2.300%03/15/2027 NORTHERN TRUST CORP NOTE(CALLABLE) 665859AW4 400,000.00 DEUTSCH 04/10/27 100.53 402,102.40 (3,381.60) (3,240.67) 4.37 3.88 DTD 05/10/2022 4.000%05/10/2027 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC CORPORATE 91324PEG3 65,000.00 MERRILL 99.91 64,942.15 (22.75) (23.56) 4.49 3.72 NOTES DTD 05/20/2022 3.700%05/15/2027 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC CORPORATE 91324PEG3 250,000.00 MKTX 99.91 249,777.50 (3,317.50) (3,269.54) 4.49 3.72 NOTES DTD 05/20/2022 3.700%05/15/2027 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK/NY CORPORATE 63254ABE7 400,000.00 JPM_CHA 98.61 394,444.00 (2,088.00) (2,122.26) 4.53 4.22 NOTES DTD 06/09/2022 3.905%06/09/2027 Security Type Sub-Total 8,150,000.00 7,794,169.39 (367,216.16) (342,917.18) 3.50 3.89 Certificate of Deposit- FDIC Insured PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 18 Page 98 pfinI asset management Managed Account Fair Market Value &Analytics For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Security Type/Description Next Call Market Market Unreal G/L Unreal G/L Effective YTM Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Broker Date Price Value On Cost Amort Cost Duration at Mkt Certificate of Deposit- FDIC Insured ENERBANK USA 29278TOD5 245,000.00 NEW ACC 94.75 232,148.53 (12,851.47) (12,851.47) 2.06 3.07 DTD 07/24/2020 0.450%07/24/2024 MEDALLION BANK UTAH 58404DH07 245,000.00 NEW ACC 91.99 225,380.65 (19,619.35) (19,619.35) 3.06 3.28 DTD 07/30/2020 0.550%07/30/2025 Security Type Sub-Total 490,000.00 457,529.18 (32,470.82) (32,470.82) 2.55 3.17 Asset-Backed Security HAROT 2021-4 A3 43815GAC3 70,000.00 MERRILL 95.54 66,878.83 (3,106.41) (3,108.54) 1.67 2.18 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880%01/21/2026 VALET 2021-1 A3 92868KAC7 105,000.00 WELLS_F 95.89 100,680.95 (4,314.93) (4,315.43) 1.57 2.10 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020%06/22/2026 HART 2022-A A3 448977AD0 155,000.00 MERRILL 97.07 150,463.74 (4,530.29) (4,530.67) 2.00 2.95 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220%10/15/2026 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 380146AC4 60,000.00 BNP_PAR 95.57 57,340.07 (2,654.72) (2,655.20) 1.85 2.33 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260%11/16/2026 COMET 2021-A3 A3 14041NFY2 180,000.00 BARCLAY 94.55 170,192.03 (9,783.17) (9,786.09) 2.31 2.35 DTD 11/30/2021 1.040%11/16/2026 Security Type Sub-Total 570,000.00 545,555.62 (24,389.52) (24,395.93) 1.96 2.45 Managed Account Sub-Total 61,500,000.00 58,731,780.93 (2,135,176.32) (2,021,619.31) 2.37 3.12 Securities Sub-Total $61,500,000.00 $58,731,780.93 ($2,135,176.32) ($2,021,619.31) 2.37 3.120/0 Accrued Interest $144,416.80 Total Investments $58,876,197.73 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 19 Page 99 pfml asset management Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Transaction Type Principal Accrued Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Trade Settle Security Description CUSIP Par Proceeds Interest Total Cost Amort Cost Method BUY 06/01/22 06/03/22 CITIGROUP INC CORPORATE NOTES 172967N00 200,000.00 (201,850.00) (207.00) (202,057.00) DTD 05/24/2022 4.140%05/24/2025 06/01/22 06/03/22 US TREASURY NOTES 91282CAZ4 1,500,000.00 (1,378,710.94) (46.11) (1,378,757.05) DTD 11/30/2020 0.375%11/30/2025 06/01/22 06/03/22 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO(CALLABLE) 025816CM9 225,000.00 (207,758.25) (299.06) (208,057.31) CORPORATE DTD 11/04/2021 1.650%11/04/2026 06/01/22 06/03/22 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 91324PEG3 250,000.00 (253,095.00) (334.03) (253,429.03) CORPORATE NOTES DTD 05/20/2022 3.700%05/15/2027 06/01/22 06/03/22 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CEK3 1,870,000.00 (1,868,246.88) (4,319.29) (1,872,566.17) DTD 04/30/2022 2.500%04/30/2024 06/01/22 06/03/22 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YY0 1,100,000.00 (1,074,046.88) (8,189.23) (1,082,236.11) DTD 12/31/2019 1.750%12/31/2024 06/09/22 06/13/22 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BK/NY 63254ABE7 400,000.00 (396,532.00) (173.56) (396,705.56) CORPORATE NOTES DTD 06/09/2022 3.905%06/09/2027 Transaction Type Sub-Total 5,545,000.00 (5,380,239.95) (13,568.28) (5,393,808.23) INTEREST 06/01/22 06/01/22 MONEY MARKET FUND MONEY0002 0.00 0.00 217.86 217.86 06/15/22 06/15/22 COMET 2021-A3 A3 14041NFY2 180,000.00 0.00 156.00 156.00 DTD 11/30/2021 1.040%11/16/2026 06/15/22 06/15/22 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCG4 340,000.00 0.00 425.00 425.00 DTD 06/15/2021 0.250%06/15/2024 06/15/22 06/15/22 HART 2022-A A3 448977AD0 155,000.00 0.00 286.75 286.75 DTD 03/16/2022 2.220%10/15/2026 06/16/22 06/16/22 GMCAR 2022-1 A3 380146AC4 60,000.00 0.00 63.00 63.00 DTD 01/19/2022 1.260%11/16/2026 06/18/22 06/18/22 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 89236TJK2 360,000.00 0.00 2,025.00 2,025.00 CORPORATE NOTES DTD 06/18/2021 1.125%06/18/2026 06/20/22 06/20/22 VALET 2021-1 A3 92868KAC7 105,000.00 0.00 89.25 89.25 DTD 12/13/2021 1.020%06/22/2026 PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 20 Page 100 pfml asset management Managed Account Security Transactions & Interest For the Month Ending June 30, 2022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, FIRE PROT DIST - 73340100 Transaction Type Principal Accrued Realized G/L Realized G/L Sale Trade Settle Security Description CUSIP Par Proceeds Interest Total Cost Amort Cost Method INTEREST 06/21/22 06/21/22 HAROT 2021-4 A3 43815GAC3 70,000.00 0.00 51.33 51.33 DTD 11/24/2021 0.880%01/21/2026 06/24/22 06/24/22 ENERBANK USA 29278TOD5 245,000.00 0.00 93.64 93.64 DTD 07/24/2020 0.450%07/24/2024 06/30/22 06/30/22 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CCJ8 600,000.00 0.00 2,625.00 2,625.00 DTD 06/30/2021 0.875%06/30/2026 06/30/22 06/30/22 US TREASURY NOTES 912828S35 795,000.00 0.00 5,465.63 5,465.63 DTD 06/30/2016 1.375%06/30/2023 06/30/22 06/30/22 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 91282CDR9 2,000,000.00 0.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 DTD 12/31/2021 0.750%12/31/2023 06/30/22 06/30/22 US TREASURY NOTES 912828YY0 1,600,000.00 0.00 14,000.00 14,000.00 DTD 12/31/2019 1.750%12/31/2024 06/30/22 06/30/22 US TREASURY NOTES 9128286Z8 670,000.00 0.00 5,862.50 5,862.50 DTD 06/30/2019 1.750%06/30/2024 06/30/22 06/30/22 MEDALLION BANK UTAH 58404DH07 245,000.00 0.00 114.45 114.45 DTD 07/30/2020 0.550%07/30/2025 Transaction Type Sub-Total 7,425,000.00 0.00 38,975.41 38,975.41 SELL 06/09/22 06/13/22 US TREASURY NOTES 9128284L1 400,000.00 401,484.38 1,315.22 402,799.60 (1,125.00) (895.20) FIFO DTD 04/30/2018 2.750%04/30/2023 Transaction Type Sub-Total 400,000.00 401,484.38 1,315.22 402,799.60 (1,125.00) (895.20) Managed Account Sub-Total (4,978,755.57) 26,722.35 (4,952,033.22) (1,125.00) (895.20) Total Security Transactions ($4,978,755.57) $26,722.35 ($4,952,033.22) ($1,125.00) ($895.20) PFM Asset Management LLC Account 73340100 Page 21 Page 101 r� -r RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT FIRE DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Mike McCliman, Fire Chief Ty Harris, Deputy Fire Chief Darci Vogel, Fire Business Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment No. 001 to the Professional Services Agreement with Mary McGrath Architects for Conceptual Design Services for the Fire Station 175 Project in the Amount of $58,290 and Authorization to Appropriate $58,290. (FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Fire Board: 1. Approve amendment No. 001 to the Professional Services Agreement, FD 2022-006, with Mary McGrath Architects in the amount of $58,290 (including a 10% contingency) for Conceptual Design Services for the ADA accessibility improvements at Fire Station 175; and 2. Authorize the appropriation of$58,290 to the Fire Capital Fund (Fund 288). BACKGROUND: On April 20, 2022, the Fire District and Mary McGrath Architects entered into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA), FD 2022-006, for Conceptual Design Build services for the rebuild of Fire Station 171, ADA accessibility improvements at Fire Stations 173 and 174, and the addition of an urban park in front of Fire Station 173. The projects will be completed utilizing a design- build process in order to streamline the design and construction process, as well as allow for greater flexibility in awarding a contract, higher quality work, and greater cost certainty with fewer change orders and delays. The Fire District has identified the need to expand the contract scope of work to include ADA accessibility improvements at Fire Station 175 in alignment with the ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan. In 1997 and 1998, the City and Fire District completed an initial ADA Self- Evaluation and Transition Plan to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In November 2020, a consultant was hired to complete a comprehensive ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan update to ensure that a plan is in place for updating buildings, infrastructure improvements, programs, services, and activities to meet current ADA and accessibility requirements. ANALYSIS: Mary McGrath Architects has provided a proposal for the Fire Station 175 ADA improvements project. The scope of work includes: restroom renovations architectural floor plans, demolition Page 102 plan, ceiling plan, building sections necessary to demonstrate scope of work; finish schedule; structural concept plan and performance requirements; plumbing demolition plan and floor plan with fixture specifications; mechanical demolition plan and new equipment layout, performance requirements; electrical demolition plan and new outlets, lighting, data, and equipment power plan; performance criteria for fire sprinkler and fire alarm modifications; detailed specifications for all disciplines; and cost estimate of bridging documents. As part of the conceptual design build process for Fire Stations 171, 173, and 174, this will continue to be a Team RC project with input from the City Manager's Office, Planning, Engineering, Public Works, Building and Safety, DolT, Community Services, and the Fire District. FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost of the amendment is $58,290. An appropriation of $58,290 in the Fire District's Capital Fund (3288501-5650 / 2111288-6311) is needed for the amendment. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item brings together portions of the Council's vision and core value by promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, and by providing continuous improvement through the construction of high-quality public improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Scope of Work, Fire Station 175 Page 2 Page 103 June 24, 2022 Darci Vogel Business Manager 111#11N10,11S% Rancho Cucamonga Fire District 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 11,11N110,N1 Via E-mail: Darci.Vogel@cityofrc.us RE: Fire Station 175 Scope and Fee Proposal for Bridging Documents Dear Darci; It is our pleasure to submit the attached scope of work and fee proposal to develop the bridging documents for the renovation of the restrooms at Fire Station 175. This work will be completed concurrently with the Stations 173 and 174 renovation and will be designed to a level that can be priced and completed by the Design/Built teams, similar to Fire Station 178. It is assumed that all four fire station projects will be issued as a package to potential design/build teams. The proposed fee and scope will see the project through the development of the construction documents by the selected Design Build Team. Please see the fee breakdown detail with the scope of work attached. We look forward to continuing our good working relationship with the City of Rancho Cucamonga and RC Fire Protection District.Thank you for the opportunity! Very sincerely, (Yri Mary C. McGrath,AIA Principal Mary McGrath Architects mmcgrath@marymcgratharchitects.com License No. C24435 610 16th STREET, SUITE 219 ■ OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 • 0 510.208 9400 • WWW.MARYMCGRATHARCHITECTS.COM AFII1I6.4ENT 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga and Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Bridging Documents Scope of Work For Fire Station 175 The scope of work below was specifically developed for at Design/Build procurement process that provides criteria documents which guide the Design/Build Team in the preparation of a proposed project design and cost model. In this approach,the selected DB Team will then further refine the project design, obtain the entitlements and environmental approvals then move on to the development of the construction documents. The scope of work and fee summary below applies to the Fire Station No. 175 restroom remodel. The restroom renovations will be based on the restroom schemes develop for Fire Station 178. It is assumed that these bridging documents will be included in the same package as Fire Station 171. Project Description: 11108 Banyan Street—Fire Station No. 175 The existing fire station 175 restroom and shower area will be renovated to provide gender neutral private restroom/showers within the existing station. Task 1: Project Initiation and Program Development. Project Initiation.The project will start with an initial discussion with the City Staff regarding the goals for Station 175 restroom renovation and developing options for the restroom layout for review by the City. Deliverables: 1.1 Conceptual restroom layouts for Station 175. 1.2 Preliminary MEP evaluation of service requirements for the conceptual layouts. 1.3 Initial Construction Cost Budget (ICCB) - Develop preliminary cost budget based on goals. See previous proposal for additional tasks and other work. Task 6.1: Bridging Documents for Station 175. General goal is to refine the Task 1 documents to create Bridging Documents suitable for the City Team to obtain Design-Build proposals through a public agency procurement process. It is intended that this process will include a design proposal phase as a part of the RFP process. To support this effort our team will develop/produce final Bridging Documents including performance specifications, design narratives for each discipline, describing functional priorities, quality levels, aesthetic requirements, design criteria, basic requirements to meet applicable building codes. Bridging Document Design Package for the Fire Station 175 to include: — Project Description — Restroom Renovations Architectural Floor Plans, demolition plan, Ceiling plan, building sections necessary to demonstrate scope of work., Finish Schedule — Structural Concept Plan and Performance Requirements (anticipate only minor modifications). — Plumbing demolition plan and floor plan with fixture specifications. — Mechanical demolition plan and new equipment layout, Performance Requirements I1 Page 105 - Electrical demolition plan and new outlets, lighting, data, and equipment power plan - Performance criteria for fire sprinkler and fire alarm modifications. - Detailed Specifications-All Disciplines - Cost Estimate of Bridging Documents Mary Architect Task Station McGrath PIC PM/SR. / Intermediate Totals 6.1 175 Architects Arch Designer Arch/Design Tech. rate $205 $180 $165 $145 $125 hours 20 0 60 80 0 total amount $4,100 $0 $9,900 $11,600 $0 $25,600 Consultant HVAC/Plumb. Elec./Data Structural Civil Cost Totals total amount $12,375 $4,015 $2,750 $0 $8,250 $27,390 $52,990 Total Fee: Task 6.1 Station 175 $52,990 I2 Page 106 4027*. 04,A �� cr RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE DISTRICT � FIRE 41)/(C(r DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Mike McCliman, Fire Chief Noah Daniels, Finance Director Darci Vogel, Fire Business Manager Kelly Guerra, Special Districts Analyst SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Results of a Special Election in Community Facilities District No. 85-1, Annexation No. 22-2, Located at 8629 Pecan Avenue (APN 0229-151-27). (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022- 022) (FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Fire Board approve a resolution declaring results of a special election in Community Facilities District No. 85-1, Annexation No. 22-2. BACKGROUND: Gaytan Land Development LLC, owner of certain property (APN 0229-151-27) located within the Fire Protection District (the "Territory"), is conditioned by the City and Fire Protection District to annex such property into the existing Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 85-1 to satisfy fire protection service mitigation impacts. On May 4, 2022, the Board declared its intention to annex APN 0229-151-27 into CFD No. 85-1. On June 15, 2022, a public hearing was held regarding the annexation and following such hearing, the Board of Directors adopted a resolution calling for a special election to submit the qualified electors of the Annexation Territory a ballot measure pertaining to the authorization to levy a special tax within the Annexation Territory. A special election was scheduled June 15, 2022. ANALYSIS: On June 15, 2022, the landowner submitted their ballot to the Board Secretary. The Board Secretary has canvassed the ballot and completed the statement of votes cast (see Exhibit "A" of Resolution). The Landowner cast their vote unanimously against the levy of the special tax in the Annexation Territory. Adoption of this resolution constitutes the formal action of the Board declaring the results of the election. Since less than two-thirds of the votes cast in the election were in favor of levying the special tax on the Annexation Territory, the Board of Directors shall take no further action on annexing the Annexation Territory to the District for a period of one year from the date of the election, in accordance with Section 53339.9 of the Government Code. FISCAL IMPACT: Annexation of the property located at 8629 Pecan Avenue was conditioned by the City and Fire Protection District to ensure the property owner covered the cost of increased demand for fire Page 107 services resulting from new development within the Annexation Territory. Because the property owner voted against the annexation, they are unable to meet the conditions for development, and therefore may not move forward with the development for at least one year. At that time they will have an opportunity to vote again on annexation, and if approved, then the project would move forward. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item brings together portions of the Council's vision and core value by providing a sustainable City and promoting a safe and healthy community for all. Annexation of the property into CFD 85-1 ensures the delivery of vital fire and life safety services to all residents while satisfying fire protection service mitigation impacts. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. FD 2022-022, Election Results Page 2 Page 108 RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF A SPECIAL ELECTION IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1, ANNEXATION NO. 22-2 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, California, has previously declared its intention and held and conducted proceedings relating to the annexation of territory to an existing Community Facilities District pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, and specifically Article 3.5 thereof. The existing Community Facilities District has been designated as Community Facilities District No. 85-1 (the "District"); and, WHEREAS, the area proposed to be annexed is known and designated as Community Facilities District No. 85-1, Annexation No. 22-2 ("Annexation Territory"), and, WHEREAS, the Board of Directors called for and ordered an election to be held to submit to the qualified voters of the Annexation Territory a proposition to levy a special tax in the Annexation Territory; and, WHEREAS, at this time said election has been held and the measure voted upon did not receive the favorable two-thirds (2/3) vote of the qualified voters, and the Board desires to declare the results of the election. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. 2. The Board of Directors hereby receives and approves the CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST, as submitted by the Election Official, said Statement setting forth the number of votes cast in the election, the measure voted upon, and the number of votes given for and/or against the measure voted upon. A copy of said Certificate and Statement is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", referenced and so incorporated. 3. The Secretary is hereby directed to enter in the minutes of this meeting the results of the election and the STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST. 4. Since less than two-thirds of the votes cast in the election were in favor of levying the special tax on the Annexation Territory, the Board of Directors shall take no further action on annexing the Annexation Territory to the District for a period of one year from the date of the election, in accordance with Section 53339.9 of the Government Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2022. Resolution No. FD 2022-022 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 109 EXHIBIT "A" CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST CERTIFICATE.OF ELECTION OFFICIAL AND STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO }SS RANCHO CUCAIVIONC;A FIRE PROTECTION DISI`RtCT } TILE UNDERSIGNED, AS ELECTION OFFICIAL OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONUA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HERF'FHY CERTIFY that pursuant to the provisions of Section 53326 of the Government Code arid. the Elections Code of the State of California, I did canvass the returns of the votes cast at the: RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACII.[TIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1 ANNEXATION NO. 22-2 SPECIAL. ELECTION In said Fire Protection District held on June 15, 2112L. I FURTHER CERTIFY that this Statement of Votes Cast shows thc whole number of votes east in said District, and thc whole number of votes cast for the 1VMcasure in said District, and the totals ef the respective columns and die totals as shown for the Measure are full,true and correct I_ TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST: II. TOTAL AL NUMBER OF VOTES FOR FOR AND AGAINST PROPOSITION A AGAINST WITNESS my hand and official Seal this ,day of ,2022. tion 0 tcia[ anc.h° camonga Fire protection District Slate California Resolution No. FD 2022-022 - Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 110 CUGAilf NONOR 0/!I ncl CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 4E FIRE DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director SUBJECT: AB 361 Findings for Special Brown Act Requirements for Teleconference. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District make the following findings in order for the City's legislative bodies to continue meeting virtually: (1) the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the COVID-19 state of emergency; and (2) the COVID-19 state of emergency continues to directly impact of the ability of the members of the City's legislative bodies to meet safely in person. BACKGROUND: On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency to exist in California due to the spread of COVID-19. This proclamation is still in effect. The Governor subsequently issued numerous executive orders suspending or modifying state laws to facilitate the response to the emergency. Among other things, these executive orders superseded certain Brown Act requirements and established special rules to give local public agencies greater flexibility to conduct teleconference meetings. The special rules included provisions allowing local public agencies to conduct teleconference meetings without having to provide a physical location from which the public may attend or comment; without having to use teleconference locations that are publicly accessible; and without having to identify teleconference locations on the agenda. Those special rules expired on September 30, 2021. On September 16, 2021, in anticipation of then-imminent expiration of his special rules for teleconference meetings, Governor Newsom signed AB 361. In key part, this bill amends the Brown Act to establish special requirements for teleconference meetings if a legislative body of a local public agency makes two findings pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3). Like the special rules in the Governor's executive orders, the special Brown Act requirements in AB 361 include provisions allowing public agencies to conduct teleconference meetings without having to use teleconference locations that are publicly accessible; and without having to identify teleconference locations on the agenda. The AB 361 special Brown Act requirements are scheduled be repealed on January 1, 2024. In order for a local public agency to be subject to the AB 361 special Brown Act requirements for teleconference meetings, a legislative body of a local public agency first must make a finding that it has "reconsidered" the circumstances of a declared state of emergency. Second, there must Page 111 be a finding that such emergency continues to directly impact the ability of legislative body members to meet safely in person. Alternatively, for the second finding, there must be a finding that state or local officials continue to impose or recommend social distancing measures. These findings must be made within 30 days after the first teleconference under AB 361 and on a monthly basis thereafter. ANALYSIS: Due to the continuing, rapid spread of the Omicron and Delta variants of COVID-19, staff is recommending that the City Council make the necessary findings in order to continue holding teleconference meetings. The findings were first made at the January 5, 2022 City Council meeting. Federal and state officials continue to recommend social distancing measures, including limiting in-door gatherings, in order to limit the spread of the highly transmissible Omicron variant of COVID-19. It is expected that virtual meetings will only be conducted pursuant to AB 361 where a City Council Member or other member of a commission/committee is unable to meet in person due to exposure to COVID-19. Under AB 361, the public must also be given an opportunity to participate in a virtual meeting via a teleconference option, and the amended agenda provides call-in information. However, the public will continue to be permitted to attend the meeting in person. It is unclear if future meetings will require teleconferencing. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact caused by this item. The City already has the necessary equipment to hold a teleconferenced meeting. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item will allow Council Members and other commissions/committees and the public to safely participate in public meetings meeting, if necessary. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 2 Page 112 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA crr DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Richard Favela, Jr., Streets, Storm Drains and Fleet Superintendent Kenneth Fung, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration To Reject Bids For The "Citywide Concrete Repairs FY 2021/2022 Project"As Non-Responsive To The Needs Of The City(CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council reject the bids for the "Citywide Concrete Repairs FY 2021/2022 Project" as non-responsive to the needs of the City. BACKGROUND: The Base Bid for this project involved the furnishing of all labor, materials, tools, and equipment required for the removal and/or installation of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and driveway approaches at various locations in the public right-of-way which included City parks and paseos. The Base Bid included the installation of pickleball courts at Red Hill Park and the project also included multiple Additive Bid items to install cobblestone at various locations in the public right- of-way. ANALYSIS: Four (4) bids for the "Citywide Concrete Repair FY 2021/2022 Project" were opened at 2:00 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2022. The low Base Bid proposal of $859,527.90 which exceeded the project budget of$496,720. With labor and supply chain issues, these are the challenges staff must contend with. Attachment 1 provides the details of the Bid Summary. Staff will review, restructure, and reduce the project's scope of work to rebid this project this calendar year. FISCAL IMPACT: The $496,720 appropriated for this project will be returned to their respective fund balances ($300,000 from Account 1001318-5650, $100,000 from Account 1177303-5650, $76,000 from Account 1131303-5300 and $20,720 from Account 1134303-5300). COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: By removing and replacing damaged sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and driveway approaches, this project would have met the City Council's Core Values by continuously improving City infrastructure and providing a nurturing high quality of life for all. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Bid Summary Page 113 MAY 24,2022 BID OPENING SUMMARY CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIR FY 2021/2022 PROJECT BASE BID(1001318-5650/1991318-0$300K CT&T Concrete Paving, Gentry General EBS General Engineering, &1177303-5650/1991318-0$100K) Gentry Brothers,Inc. Inc. Engineering,Inc. Inc. Average of item Description Qty Unit Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost cost in bid Unit Price Cost cost in bid Unit Prices proposal proposal 1 Mobilization 1 LS $166,464.90 $166,464.90 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 $27,800.00 $27,800.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $73,066.23 I Video Recording of All Project 2 Locations 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,675.00 STREETS-ORANGEWOOD AREA 3 Construct New ADA Access Ramp 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,900.00 $6,900.00 $7,300.00 $7,300.00 $6,300.00 4 Remove Ex.4"Sidewalk 9153 SF _ $4.00 $36,612.00 $4.00 $36,612.00 $3.00 $27,459.00 $4.20 $38,442.60 _ $3.80 5 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 9153 SF _ $6.00 $54,918.00 $7.00 $64,071.00 $7.00 $64,071.00 $6.75 $61,782.75 _ $6.69 Remove Existing 6"Residential Drive 6 Approach 2516 SF $5.00 $12,580.00 $6.00 $15,096.00 $6.55 $16,479.80 $6.00 $15,096.00 $5.89 Construct New P.C.C.Residential 7 Drive Approach 2516 SF _ $7.00 $17,612.00 $7.00 $17,612.00 $17.00 $42,772.00 $8.25 $20,757.00 _ $9.81 Remove Existing 8"Curb&18" I 8 Gutter 1291 LF $12.00 $15,492.00 $12.00 $15,492.00 $33.00 $42,603.00 $29.00 $37,439.00 $21.50 Construct New P.C.C.8"Curb&18" 9 Gutter 1291 LF $55.00 $71,005.00 $48.00 $61,968.00 $42.50 $54,867.50 $40.00 $51,640.00 $46.38 10 Remove Existing A.C.Pavement 785 SF $3.00 $2,355.00 $5.00 $3,925.00 $14.60 $11,461.00 $4.00 $3,140.00 _ $6.65 Install New Asphalt Concrete 11 Pavement 785 SF $4.00 $3,140.00 $9.00 $7,065.00 $16.70 $13,109.50 $17.00 $13,345.00 $11.68 STREETS-ORANGEWOOD AREA 12 Remove Ex.4"Sidewalk 2029 SF $4.00 $8,116.00 $4.00 $8,116.00 $3.00 $6,087.00 $4.20 $8,521.80 $3.80 13 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 2029 SF $6.00 $12,174.00 $7.00 $14,203.00 $7.00 $14,203.00 $6.75 $13,695.75 _ $6.69 Remove Existing 6"Residential Drive 14 Approach 702 SF $5.00 $3,510.00 $7.00 $4,914.00 $6.55 $4,598.10 $6.00 $4,212.00 $6.14 Construct New P.C.C.Residential 15 Drive Approach 702 SF $7.00 $4,914.00 $12.00 $8,424.00 $17.00 $11,934.00 $8.25 $5,791.50 $11.06 Remove Existing 8"Curb&18" 16 Gutter 542 LF $12.00 $6,504.00 $12.00 $6,504.00 $33.00 $17,886.00 $29.00 $15,718.00 $21.50 Construct New P.C.C.8"Curb&18" 17 Gutter 542 LF - $55.00 $29,810.00 _ $48.00 $26,016.00 $42.60 $23,089.20 $40.00 $21,680.00 - $46.40 18 Remove Existing A.C.Pavement 556 SF _ $3.00 $1,668.00 $5.00 $2,780.00 $14.70 $8,173.20 $4.00 $2,224.00 _ $6.68 Install New Asphalt Concrete 19 Pavement 556 SF $4.00 $2,224.00 $9.00 $5,004.00 $16.70 $9,285.20 $17.00 $9,452.00 $11.68 STREETS-BERYL STREET/HELLMAN AVE/LEMON AVE AREA 20 Remove Ex.4"Sidewalk 767 SF $4.00 $3,068.00 $6.00 $4,602.00 $3.00 $2,301.00 $4.20 $3,221.40 $4.30 21 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 767 SF $6.00 $4,602.00 $7.00 $5,369.00 $7.00 $5,369.00 $6.75 $5,177.25 $6.69 Remove Existing 6"Residential Drive 22 Approach 260 SF $5.00 $1,300.00 $8.00 $2,080.00 $6.55 $1,703.00 $6.00 $1,560.00 $6.39 Construct New P.C.C.Residential 23 Drive Approach 260 SF $7.00 $1,820.00 $12.00 $3,120.00 $17.00 $4,420.00 $8.25 $2,145.00 $11.06 STREETS-ALTA LOMA AREA A 24 Remove Ex.4"Sidewalk 1612 SF $4.00 $6,448.00 $4.00 $6,448.00 $3.00 $4,836.00 $4.20 $6,770.40 $3.80 25 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 1612 SF $6.00 $9,672.00 $7.00 $11,284.00 $7.00 $11,284.00 $6.75 $10,881.00 $6.69 Remove Existing 6"Residential Drive 26 Approach 942 SF $5.00 $4,710.00 $7.00 $6,594.00 $6.55 $6,170.10 $6.00 $5,652.00 $6.14 Construct New P.C.C.Residential 27 Drive Approach 942 SF $7.00 $6,594.00 $12.00 $11,304.00 $17.00 $16,014.00 $8.25 $7,771.50 $11.06 Remove Existing 8"Curb&18" 28 Gutter 241 LF $12.00 $2,892.00 $12.00 $2,892.00 $33.00 $7,953.00 $29.00 $6,989.00 $21.50 Construct New P.C.C.8"Curb&18" 29 Gutter 241 LF $55.00 $13,255.00 $48.00 $11,568.00 $42.60 $10,266.60 $40.00 $9,640.00 $46.40 30 Remove Existing A.C.Pavement 248 SF $3.00 $744.00 $5.00 $1,240.00 $14.70 $3,645.60 $4.00 $992.00 $6.68 31 Install New Asphalt Concrete 248 SF $4.00 $992.00 $9.00 $2,232.00 $16.70 $4,141.60 $1,722.00 $427,056.00 $437.93 STREETS-ALTA LOMA AREA B 32 Remove Ex.4"Sidewalk 1692 SF $4.00 $6,768.00 $5.00 $8,460.00 $3.00 $5,076.00 $4.20 $7,106.40 $4.05 33 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 1692 SF $6.00 $10,152.00 $7.00 $11,844.00 $7.00 $11,844.00 $6.75 $11,421.00 $6.69 34 Remove Existing 6"Residential Drive 1058 SF $5.00 $5,290.00 $7.00 $7,406.00 $6.55 $6,929.90 $6.00 $6,348.00 $6.14 Construct New P.C.C.Residential 35 Drive Approach 1058 SF $7.00 $7,406.00 $12.00 $12,696.00 $17.00 $17,986.00 $8.25 $8,728.50 $11.06 Remove Existing 8"Curb&18" 36 Gutter 126 LF $12.00 $1,512.00 $12.00 $1,512.00 $33.00 $4,158.00 $29.00 $3,654.00 $21.50 Construct New P.C.C.8"Curb&18" 37 Gutter 126 LF $55.00 $6,930.00 $48.00 $6,048.00 $42.63 $5,371.38 $40.00 $5,040.00 $46.41 38 Remove Existing A.C.Pavement 130 SF $3.00 $390.00 $5.00 $650.00 $14.70 $1,911.00 $4.00 $520.00 $6.68 Install New Asphalt Concrete 39 Pavement 130 SF _ $4.00 $520.00 $9.00 $1,170.00 $16.75 $2,177.50 $17.00 $2,210.00 _ $11.69 STREETS-ALTA LOMA AREA _ _ 40 Remove Ex.4"Sidewalk 336 SF $4.00 $1,344.00 $7.00 $2,352.00 $3.00 $1,008.00 $4.20 $1,411.20 $4.55 41 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 336 SF $6.00 $2,016.00 $7.00 $2,352.00 $7.00 $2,352.00 $6.75 $2,268.00 $6.69 Remove Existing 6"Residential Drive 42 Approach 455 SF - $5.00 $2,275.00 $8.00 $3,640.00 $6.55 $2,980.25 $6.00 $2,730.00 _ $6.39 Construct New P.C.C.Residential 43 Drive Approach 455 SF $7.00 $3,185.00 $12.00 $5,460.00 $17.00 $7,735.00 $8.25 $3,753.75 $11.06 Remove Existing 8"Curb&18" 44 Gutter 44 LF $12.00 $528.00 $12.00 $528.00 $33.00 $1,452.00 $29.00 $1,276.00 $21.50 Construct New P.C.C.8"Curb&18" 45 Gutter 44 LE $55.00 $2,420.00 $48.00 $2,112.00 $42.60 $1,874.40 $40.00 $1,760.00 $46.40 46 Remove Existing A.C.Pavement 46 SF $3.00 $138.00 $5.00 $230.00 $14.70 $676.20 $4.00 $184.00 $6.68 Install New Asphalt Concrete 47 Pavement 46 SF $4.00 $184.00 $9.00 $414.00 $16.70 $768.20 $17.00 $782.00 $11.68 STREETS-ALTA LOMA AREA D _48 Remove Ex.4"Sidewalk 1565 SF $4.00 $6,260.00 $5.00 $7,825.00 $3.00 $4,695.00 $4.20 $6,573.00 $4.05 49 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 1565 SF $6.00 $9,390.00 $7.00 $10,955.00 $7.00 $10,955.00 $6.75 $10,563.75 $6.69 Remove Existing 6"Residential Drive 50 Approach 640 SF $5.00 $3,200.00 $7.00 $4,480.00 $6.55 $4,192.00 $6.00 $3,840.00 $6.14 Construct New P.C.C.Residential 51 Drive Approach 640 SF $7.00 $4,480.00 $12.00 $7,680.00 $17.00 $10,880.00 $8.25 $5,280.00 $11.06 Remove Existing 8"Curb&18" 52 Gutter 90 LF $12.00 $1,080.00 $12.00 $1,080.00 $33.00 $2,970.00 $29.00 $2,610.00 $21.50 Construct New P.C.C.8"Curb&18" 53 Gutter 90 LF $55.00 $4,950.00 $48.00 $4,320.00 $42.60 $3,834.00 $40.00 $3,600.00 _ $46.40 54 Remove Existing A.C.Pavement _ 94 SF $3.00 $282.00 $5.00 $470.00 $14.70 $1,381.80 $4.00 $376.00 _ $6.68 Install New Asphalt Concrete 55 Pavement 94 SF $4.00 $376.00 $9.00 $846.00 $16.75 $1,574.50 $17.00 $1,598.00 $11.69 PARKS(LMD-2$38,000&LMD-4$10,360) PARKS-RALPH M LEWIS(1 panel) _ 56 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 30 SF _ $4.00 $120.00 $40.00 $1,200.00 $4.40 $132.00 $4.30 $129.00 $13.18 57 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 30 SF $6.00 $180.00 $45.00 $1,350.00 $25.70 $771.00 $7.00 $210.00 $20.93 PARKS-VICTORIA ARBORS PARK(5 panels) 58 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 1998 SF $5.00 $9,990.00 $6.00 $11,988.00 $4.35 $8,691.30 $4.30 $8,591.40 $4.91 59 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 1998 SF $7.00 $13,986.00 $8.00 $15,984.00 $9.50 $18,981.00 $7.00 $13,986.00 - $7.88 PARKS-MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK(4 panels) 60 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk I 13441 SF I I $5.00 $6,720.00 $6.00 $8,064.00 $4.35 $5,846.40 $4.30 $5,779.20 $4.91 Page 114 61 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk I 13441 SF $7.00 $9,408.00 $8.00 $10,752.00 $9.71 $13,050.24 $7.00 $9,408.00 $7.93 PASEOS(LMD-2$38,000&LMD-4$10,360) _ PASEO 13(2 panels) 62 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 171 SF $5.00 $855.00 $10.00 $1,710.00 $4.40 $752.40 $4.30 $735.30 $5.93 63 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 171 SF $7.00 $1,197.00 $14.00 $2,394.00 $12.20 $2,086.20 $9.00 $1,539.00 $10.55 PASEO 18(12 panels) 64 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 1096 SF $5.00 $5,480.00 $7.00 $7,672.00 $4.40 $4,822.40 $4.50 $4,932.00 $5.23 65 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 1096 SF $8.00 $8,768.00 $8.00 $8,768.00 $9.80 $10,740.80 $9.00 $9,864.00 $8.70 PASEO 19(2 panels) 66 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 324 SF $5.00 $1,620.00 $9.00 $2,916.00 $4.40 $1,425.60 $4.50 $1,458.00 $5.73 67 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk _ 324 SF _ $8.00 $2,592.00 $10.00 $3,240.00 $10.85 $3,515.40 $9.00 $2,916.00 _ $9.46 PASEO 22(2 panels) _ _ 68 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 152 SF $5.00 $760.00 $10.00 $1,520.00 $4.40 $668.80 $4.50 $684.00 $5.98 69 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 152 SF $8.00 $1,216.00 $14.00 $2,128.00 $12.50 $1,900.00 $9.00 $1,368.00 $10.88 PASEO 24(5 panels) 70 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 510 SF _ $5.00 $2,550.00 $9.00 $4,S90.00 $4.40 $2,244.00 $4.50 $2,295.00 _ $5.73 71 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 510 SF _ $8.00 $4,080.00 $10.00 $5,100.00 $10.35 $5,278.50 $9.00 $4,590.00 _ $9.34 PASEO 26(12 panels) 72 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 1822 SF $5.00 $9,110.00 $5.00 $9,110.00 $4.40 $8,016.80 $4.50 $8,199.00 $4.73 73 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 1822 SF $8.00 $14,576.00 $8.00 $14,576.00 $9.70 $17,673.40 $9.00 $16,398.00 $8.68 PASEO 27(9 panels) _ 74 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 888 SF $5.00 $4,440.00 $7.00 $6,216.00 $4.40 $3,907.20 $4.50 $3,996.00 $5.23 75 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 888 SF $8.00 $7,104.00 $8.00 $7,104.00 $9.90 $8,791.20 $9.00 $7,992.00 $8.73 PASEO 28(11 panels) 76 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 2092 SF $5.00 $10,460.00 $5.00 $10,460.00 $4.30 $8,995.60 $4.50 $9,414.00 $4.70 77 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 2092 SF $8.00 $16,736.00 $8.00 $16,736.00 $9.50 $19,874.00 $9.00 $18,828.00 $8.63 PASEO 29(4 panels) 78 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 1660 SF $5.00 $8,300.00 $5.00 $8,300.00 $4.30 $7,138.00 $4.50 $7,470.00 $4.70 79 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 1660 SF $8.00 $13,280.00 $8.00 $13,280.00 $9.50 $15,770.00 $9.00 $14,940.00 $8.63 PASEO 44(8 panels) 80 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 636 SF $5.00 $3,180.00 $9.00 $5,724.00 $4.30 $2,734.80 $4.50 $2,862.00 $5.70 - 81 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 636 SF $8.00 $5,088.00 $10.00 $6,360.00 $10.00 $6,360.00 $9.00 $5,724.00 $9.25 PASEO 45(2 panels) 82 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 144 SF $5.00 $720.00 $10.00 $1,440.00 $4.30 $619.20 $4.50 $648.00 $5.95 83 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 144 SF $8.00 $1,152.00 $14.00 $2,016.00 $12.75 $1,836.00 $9.00 $1,296.00 $10.94 PASEO 47(1 panel) 84 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 18 SF $5.00 $90.00 $18.00 $324.00 $4.30 $77.40 $4.50 $81.00 $7.95 85 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 18 SF $8.00 $144.00 $32.00 $576.00 $36.00 $648.00 $9.00 $162.00 $21.25 PASEO 50(19 panels) 86 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 2867 SF $5.00 $14,335.00 $5.00 $14,335.00 $4.35 $12,471.45 $4.50 $12,901.50 $4.71 87 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 2867 SF $8.00 $22,936.00 $8.00 $22,936.00 $9.50 $27,236.50 $9.00 $25,803.00 $8.63 PASEO 75(2 panels) _ 88 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 564 SF $5.00 $2,820.00 $9.00 $5,076.00 $4.35 $2,453.40 $4.50 $2,538.00 _ $5.71 89 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 564 SF $8.00 $4,512.00 $10.00 $5,640.00 $10.20 $5,752.80 $9.00 $5,076.00 _ $9.30 PASEO 83(1 panel) 90 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 525 SF $5.00 $2,625.00 $9.00 $4,725.00 $4.35 $2,283.75 $4.50 $2,362.50 $5.71 91 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 525 SF $8.00 $4,200.00 $10.00 $5,250.00 $10.25 $5,381.25 $9.00 $4,725.00 $9.31 PASEO 8(1 panel) 92 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 64 SF $5.00 $320.00 $18.00 $1,152.00 $4.35 $278.40 $4.50 $288.00 $7.96 93 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 64 SF $8.00 $512.00 $32.00 $2,048.00 $17.00 $1,088.00 $9.00 $576.00 $16.50 PASEO 89(1 panel) 94 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 32 SF $5.00 $160.00 $18.00 $576.00 $4.35 $139.20 $4.50 $144.00 $7.96 95 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 32 SF $8.00 $256.00 $32.00 $1,024.00 $25.00 $800.00 $9.00 $288.00 $18.50 PASEO 80(1 panel) 96 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 40 SF $5.00 $200.00 $18.00 $720.00 $4.35 $174.00 $4.50 $180.00 $7.96 97 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 40 SF $8.00 $320.00 $32.00 $1,280.00 $21.65 $866.00 $9.00 $360.00 $17.66 PASEO 92(5 panels) _ 98 Remove Existing Park Sidewalk 436 SF $5.00 $2,180.00 $10.00 $4,360.00 $4.35 $1,896.60 $4.50 $1,962.00 _ $5.96 99 Construct New 4"PCC Sidewalk 436 SF $8.00 $3,488.00 $14.00 $6,104.00 $10.50 $4,578.00 $9.00 $3,924.00 $10.38 INSTALL PICKLEBALL COURTS AT RED HILL PARK(CSD$100,000) Remove Ex.Shuffleboard and Horse Shoe Toss Areas and Prepare Site for 100 New PickleBall Courts 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $10,400.00 $10,400.00 $20,700.00 $20,700.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 _512,025.00 Install New Pickleball Courts including concrete flooring,striping, nets,poles and all other items required for fully functional 101 pickleball courts 1 LS $32,000.00 $32,000.00 $66,000.00 $66,000.00 $83,000.00 $83,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $47,750.00 BASE BID TOTAL= $859,537.90 $873,289.00 $951,311.52 $1,209,349.45 $0.00 ADDITIVE BIDS CT&T Concrete Paving, Gentry General EBS General Engineering, (COBBLESTONE INSTALLATION) Gentry Brothers,Inc. Inc. Engineering,Inc. Inc. item Description Qty Unit Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Landscape Maintenance District 2R($20,000) Additive Bid 1:Location 2R-1 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap ABla lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,481.25 Install River Washed Granite AB1b Cobblestones 180 SF $17.00 $3,060.00 $39.00 $7,020.00 $66.00 $11,880.00 $105.00 $18,900.00 $56.75 ABlc Construct Concrete Header 16 LF $75.00 $1,200.00 $50.00 $800.00 $39.00 $624.00 $338.00 $5,408.00 $125.50 Total= $5,260.00 $10,820.00 $14,274.00 $338.00 $28,463.00 Additive Bid 2:Location 2R-2 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB2a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,060.00 $3,060.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,621.25 Install River Washed Granite AB2b Cobblestones 278 SF $17.00 $4,726.00 $29.00 $8,062.00 $66.00 $18,348.00 $105.00 $29,190.00 $54.25 AB2c Construct Concrete Header 15 LF $75.00 $1,125.00 $35.00 $525.00 $39.00 $585.00 $338.00 $5,070.00 $121.75 Total= $7,351.00 $11,647.00 $20,703.00 $38,415.00 Additive Bid 3:Location 2R-3 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB3a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,060.00 $4,060.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,871.25 Install River Washed Granite AB3b Cobblestones 228 SF $17.00 $3,876.00 $29.00 $6,612.00 $66.00 $15,048.00 $105.00 $23,940.00 $54.25 Total $5,376.00 $10,672.00 $16,818.00 $28,095.00 Additive Bid 4:Location 2R-4 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB4a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,356.25 Install River Washed Granite AB4b Cobblestones 88 SF $17.00 $1,496.00 $29.00 $2,552.00 $66.00 $5,808.00 $105.00 $9 240.00 $54.25 Page 115 Total= $2,496.00 $5,052.00 $7,578.00 $13,395.00 Additive Bid 5:Location 2R-5 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap ABSa lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,406.25 Install River Washed Granite AB5b Cobblestones 130 SF $17.00 $2,210.00 $29.00 $3,770.00 $66.00 $8,580.00 $105.00 $13,650.00 $54.25 ABSc Construct Concrete Header 7 LF $75.00 $525.00 $35.00 $245.00 $39.00 $273.00 $338.00 $2,366.00 $121.75 Total= $3,935.00 $6,515.00 $10,623.00 $20,171.00 Additive Bid 6:Location 2R-6 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB6a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,060.00 $4,060.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,871.25 Install River Washed Granite AB6b Cobblestones 260 SF $17.00 $4,420.00 $29.00 $7,540.00 $66.00 $17,160.00 $105.00 $27,300.00 $54.25 Total= $5,920.00 $11,600.00 $18,930.00 $31,455.00 Additive Bid 7:Location 2R-7 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB7a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $3,231.25 Install River Washed Granite AB7b Cobblestones 465 SF $17.00 $7,905.00 $28.00 $13,020.00 $66.00 $30,690.00 $105.00 $48,825.00 $54.00 AB7c Construct Concrete Header 2 LF $75.00 $150.00 $50.00 $100.00 $39.00 $78.00 $338.00 $676.00 $125.50- Total= $10,555.00 $17,620.00 $32,538.00 $53,656.00 Additive Bid 8:Location 2R-8 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB8a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,060.00 $4,060.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,871.25 Install River Washed Granite AB8b Cobblestones 273 SF $17.00 $4,641.00 $29.00 $7,917.00 $66.00 $18,018.00 $105.00 $28,665.00 $54.25 Total= $6,141.00 $11,977.00 $19,788.00 $32,820.00 Additive Bid 9:Location 2R-9 _ Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB9a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,581.25 Install River Washed Granite AB9b Cobblestones 140 SF $17.00 $2,380.00 $29.00 $4,060.00 $66.00 $9,240.00 $105.00 $14,700.00 $54.25 AB9c Construct Concrete Header 7 LF $75.00 $525.00 $50.00 $350.00 $39.00 $273.00 $338.00 $2,366.00 $125.50 Total= $4,105.00 $7,610.00 $11,283.00 $21,221.00 Additive Bid 10:Location 2R-10 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap ABlOa lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,060.00 $4,060.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,871.25 Install River Washed Granite ABlOb Cobblestones 220 SF $17.00 $3,740.00 $29.00 $6,380.00 $66.00 $14,520.00 $105.00 $23,100.00 $54.25 ABlOc Construct Concrete Header 7 LF $75.00 $525.00 $50.00 $350.00 $39.00 $273.00 $338.00 $2,366.00 $125.50 Total= $5,765.00 $10,790.00 $16,563.00 $29,621.00 Additive Bid 11:Location 2R-11 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap ABlla lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,050.00 $4,050.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 _ $2,868.75 Install River Washed Granite AB11b Cobblestones 335 SF $17.00 $5,695.00 $29.00 $9,715.00 $66.00 $22,110.00 $105.00 $35,175.00 $54.25 Total= $7,195.00 $13,765.00 $23,880.00 $39,330.00 Additive Bid 12:Location 2R-12 _ _ Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB12a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,856.25 Install River Washed Granite AB12b Cobblestones 180 SF $17.00 $3,060.00 $29.00 $5,220.00 $66.00 $11,880.00 $105.00 $18,900.00 $54.25 Total= $4,060.00 $9,720.00 $13,650.00 $23,055.00 Landscape Maintenance District 3B($22,650) Additive Bid 13:Location 3B-1 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB13a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS _ $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,981.25 Install River Washed Granite AB13b Cobblestones 200 SF $17.00 $3,400.00 $29.00 $5,800.00 $66.00 $13,200.00 $105.00 $21,000.00 $54.25 AB13c Construct Concrete Header 11 LF $75.00 $825.00 _ $50.00 $550.00 $39.00 $429.00 $336.00 $3,716.00 $125.50 Total= $5,725.00 $10,850.00 $15,399.00 $28,873.00 Additive Bid 14:Location 3B-2 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB14a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,856.25 Install River Washed Granite AB14b Cobblestones 225 SF $17.00 $3,825.00 $29.00 $6,525.00 $66.00 $14,850.00 $105.00 $23,625.00 $54.25 Total= $5,325.00 $10,525.00 $16,620.00 $27,780.00 Additive Bid 15:Location 3B-3 _ Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB15a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,856.25 Install River Washed Granite AB15b Cobblestones 270 SF $17.00 $4,590.00 $29.00 $7,830.00 $66.00 $17,820.00 $105.00 $28,350.00 $54.25 AB15c Construct Concrete Header 2 LF $75.00 $150.00 $50.00 $100.00 $39.00 $78.00 $338.00 $676.00 $125.50 Total= $6,240.00 $11,930.00 $19,668.00 $33,181.00 Additive Bid 16:Location 3B-4 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB16a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,600.00 $5,600.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 _ $3,381.25 Install River Washed Granite AB16b Cobblestones 450 SF $17.00 $7,650.00 $29.00 $13,050.00 $66.00 $29,700.00 $105.00 $47,250.00 $54.25 Total= $9,650.00 $18,650.00 $31,470.00 $51,405.00 Additive Bid 17:Location 3B-5 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB17a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,900.00 $2,900.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4 155.00 I $2,581.25 Page 116 Install River Washed Granite AB17b Cobblestones 265 SF $17.00 $4,505.00 $29.00 $7,685.00 $66.00 $17,490.00 $105.00 $27,825.00 $54.25 AB17c Construct Concrete Header 16 LF $75.00 $1,200.00 $50.00 $800.00 $39.00 $624.00 $338.00 $5,408.00 _ $125.50 Total= $7,205.00 $11,385.00 $19,884.00 $37,388.00 Additive Bid 18:Location 38-6 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB18a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,681.25 Install River Washed Granite AB18b Cobblestones _ 462 SF $17.00 $7,854.00 _ $29.00 $13,398.00 $66.00 $30,492.00 $105.00 $48,510.00 $54.25 AB18c Construct Concrete Header - 28 LF $75.00 $2,100.00 $50.00 $1,400.00 $39.00 $1,092.00 $338.00 $9,464.00 _ $125.50 Total= $11,954.00 $17,598.00 $33,354.00 $62,129.00 Additive Bid 19:Location 3B-7 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB19a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,431.25 Install River Washed Granite AB19b Cobblestones 114 SF $17.00 $1,938.00 $29.00 $3,306.00 $66.00 $7,524.00 $105.00 $11,970.00 $54.25 AB19c Construct Concrete Header 8 LF $75.00 $600.00 $50.00 $400.00 $39.00 $312.00 $338.00 $2,704.00 $125.50 Tatal= $3,538.00 $6,506.00 $9,606.00 $9,609.00 $18,829.00 Additive Bid 20:Location 3B-8 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB20a lines),etc.from project site _ 1 LS $700.00 $700.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 _ $2,356.25 Install River Washed Granite AB20b Cobblestones 85 SF $17.00 $1,445.00 $29.00 $2,465.00 $66.00 $5,610.00 $105.00 $8,925.00 $54.25 AB20c Construct Concrete Header 9 LF $75.00 $675.00 $50.00 $450.00 $39.00 $351.00 $338.00 $3,042.00 $125.50 Total= $2,820.00 $5,715.00 $7,731.00 $16,122.00 Landscape Maintenance District 4R($15,000) Additive Bid 21:Location 4R-1 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB21a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,856.25 Install River Washed Granite AB21b Cobblestones 220 SF $17.00 $3,740.00 $29.00 $6,380.00 $66.00 $14,520.00 $105.00 $23,100.00 $54.25 AB21c Construct Concrete Header 6 LF $75.00 $450.00 $50.00 $300.00 $39.00 $234.00 $338.00 $2,028.00 $125.50 Total= $5,190.00 $11,180.00 $16,524.00 $29,283.00 Additive Bid 22:Location 4R-2 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB22a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,281.25 Install River Washed Granite AB22b Cobblestones 410 SF $17.00 $6,970.00 $29.00 $11,890.00 $66.00 $27,060.00 $105.00 $43,050.00 $54.25 Total= $8,970.00 $13,090.00 $28,830.00 $47,205.00 Additive Bid 23:Location 4R-3 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB23a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,531.25 Install River Washed Granite AB23b Cobblestones 130 SF $17.00 $2,210.00 $29.00 $3,770.00 $66.00 $8,580.00 $105.00 $13,650.00 $54.25 AB23c Construct Concrete Header 4 LF $75.00 $300.00 $50.00 $200.00 $39.00 $156.00 $338.00 $1,352.00 $125.50 Total= $3,710.00 $6,970.00 $10,506.00 $19,157.00 Additive Bid 24:Location 4R-4 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB24a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $800.00 $800.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,231.25 Install River Washed Granite AB24b Cobblestones 75 SF $17.00 $1,275.00 $29.00 $2,175.00 $66.00 $4,950.00 $105.00 $7,875.00 $54.25 AB24c Construct Concrete Header 4 LF $75.00 $300.00 $50.00 $200.00 $39.00 $156.00 $338.00 $1,352.00 $125.50 Total= $2,375.00 $4,575.00 $6,876.00 $13,382.00 Additive Bid 25:Location 4R-5 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB25a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,981.25 Install River Washed Granite AB2Sb Cobblestones 288 SF _ $17.00 $4,896.00 $29.00 $8,352.00 $66.00 $19,008.00 $105.00 $30,240.00 _ $54.25 AB25c Construct Concrete Header 7 LF $75.00 $525.00 $50.00 $350.00 $39.00 $273.00 $338.00 $2,366.00 $125.50 Total= $6,921.00 $13,202.00 $21,051.00 $36,761.00 Additive Bid 26:Location 4R-6 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB26a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 _ $2,431.25 Install River Washed Granite AB26b Cobblestones 105 SF $17.00 $1,785.00 $29.00 $3,045.00 $66.00 $6,930.00 $105.00 $11,025.00 $54.25 Total= $2,785.00 $s,84s.00 $8,700.00 $15,180.00 Additive Bid 27:Location 4R-7 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB27a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,406.25 Install River Washed Granite AB27b Cobblestones 100 SF $17.00 $1,700.00 $29.00 $2,900.00 $66.00 $6,600.00 $105.00 $10,500.00 $54.25 AB27c Construct Concrete Header 20 LF $75.00 $1,500.00 $50.00 $1,000.00 $39.00 $780.00 $338.00 $6,760.00 $125.50 Total= $4,200.00 $6,600.00 $9,150.00 $21,415.00 Additive Bid 28:Location 4R-8 Remove Existing Vegetation, _ -,- Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB28a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $3,181.25 Install River Washed Granite AB28b Cobblestones 460 SF $17.00 $7,820.00 $29.00 $13,340.00 $66.00 $30,360.00 $105.00 $48,300.00 $54.25 AB28c Construct Concrete Header 10 LF $75.00 $750.00 $50.00 $500.00 $39.00 $390.00 $338.00 $3,380.00 $125.50 Total= $10,570.00 $18,640.00 $32,520.00 $55,835.00 lAdditive Bid 29:Location 4R-9 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB29a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,900.00 $4,900.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $3,206.25 Install River Washed Granite AB29b Cobblestones 435 SF $17.00 $7,395.00 $29.00 $12,615.00 $66.00 $28,710.00 $105.00 $45,675.00 $54.25 AB29c Construct Concrete Header 8 LF $75.00 $600.00 $50.00 $400.00 $39.00 $312.00 $338.00 $2 704.00 $125.50 Page 117 Total= $9,995.00 $17,915.00 $30,792.00 $52,534.00 Landscape Maintenance District 6R($30,000) Additive Bid 30:Location 6R-1 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB30a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,100.00 $3,100.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,506.25 Install River Washed Granite AB30b Cobblestones 168 SF $17.00 $2,856.00 $29.00 $4,872.00 $66.00 $11,088.00 $105.00 $17,640.00 $54.25 Total= $3,856.00 $7,972.00 $12,858.00 $21,795.00 Additive Bid 31:Location 6R-2 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB31a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,381.25 Install River Washed Granite AB31b Cobblestones 160 SF $17.00 $2,720.00 $29.00 $4,640.00 $66.00 $10,560.00 $105.00 $16,800.00 $54.25 Total= $3,720.00 $7,240.00 $12,330.00 $20,955.00 Additive Bid 32:Location 6R-3 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB32a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,900.00 $2,900.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 i $2,456.25 Install River Washed Granite AB32b Cobblestones 123 SF _ $17.00 $2,091.00 $29.00 $3,567.00 $66.00 $8,118.00 $105.00 $12,915.00 $13,650.00 $54.25 AB32c Construct Concrete Header 3 LF $75.00 $225.00 $50.00 $150.00 $39.00 $117.00 $338.00 $1,014.00 $1,352.00 $125.50 Total= $3,316.00 $6,617.00 $10,005.00 $18,084.00 $19,157.00 Additive Bid 33:Location 6R-4 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB33a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,306.25 Install River Washed Granite AB33b Cobblestones 48 SF $17.00 $816.00 $29.00 $1,392.00 $66.00 $3,168.00 $105.00 $5,040.00 _ $54.25 Total= $1,316.00 $4,192.00 $4,938.00 $9,195.00 Additive Bid 34:Location 6R-5 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB34a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS _ $500.00 $500.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,156.25 Install River Washed Granite AB34b Cobblestones 33 SF $17.00 $561.00 $29.00 $957.00 $66.00 $2,178.00 $105.00 $3,465.00 $54.25 Total= $1,061.00 $3,157.00 $3,948.00 $7,620.00 Additive Bid 35:Location 6R-6 _ _ _ Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB35a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,156.25 Install River Washed Granite AB35b Cobblestones 80 SF $17.00 $1,360.00 $29.00 $2,320.00 $66.00 $5,280.00 $105.00 $8,400.00 $54.25 Total= $1,860.00 $4,520.00 $7,050.00 $12,555.00 Additive Bid 36:Location 6R-7 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB36a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $3,056.25 Install River Washed Granite AB36b Cobblestones 350 SF $17.00 $5,950.00 $29.00 $10,150.00 $66.00 $23,100.00 $105.00 $36,750.00 $54.25 AB36c Construct Concrete Header 12 LF $75.00 $900.00 $50.00 $600.00 $39.00 $468.00 $338.00 $4,056.00 $125.50 Total= $8,350.00 $15,550.00 $25,338.00 $44,961.00 Additive Bid 37:Location 6R-8 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB37a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,156.25 Install River Washed Granite AB37b Cobblestones 70 SF $17.00 $1,190.00 $29.00 $2,030.00 $66.00 $4,620.00 $105.00 $7,350.00 $54.25 Total= $1,690.00 $4,230.00 $6,390.00 $11,505.00 Additive Bid 38:Location 6R-9 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB38a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $700.00 $700.00 $2,900.00 $2,900.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,381.25 Install River Washed Granite AB38b Cobblestones 136 SF $17.00 $2,312.00 $29.00 $3,944.00 $66.00 $8,976.00 $105.00 $14,280.00 $54.25 Total= $3,012.00 $6,844.00 $10,746.00 $18,435.00 Additive Bid 39:Location 6R-10 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB39a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,250.00 $3,250.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,793.75 Install River Washed Granite AB39b Cobblestones 400 SF _ $17.00 $6,800.00 $29.00 $11,600.00 $66.00 $26,400.00 $105.00 $42,000.00 _ $54.25 AB39c Construct Concrete Header 20 LF $75.00 $1,500.00 $50.00 $1,000.00 $39.00 $780.00 $338.00 $6,760.00 $125.50 Total= $10,300.00 $15,850.00 $28,950.00 $52,915.00 Additive Bid 40:Location 6R-11 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB40a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,706.25 Install River Washed Granite AB40b Cobblestones 180 SF $17.00 $3,060.00 $29.00 $5,220.00 $66.00 $11,880.00 $105.00 $18,900.00 $54.25 AB40c Construct Concrete Header 12 LF $75.00 $900.00 $50.00 $600.00 $39.00 $468.00 $338.00 $4,056.00 $125.50 Total= $4,960.00 $9,720.00 $14,118.00 $27,111.00 Additive Bid 41:Location 6R-12 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB41a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,300.00 $5,300.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $3,306.25 Install River Washed Granite AB41b Cobblestones 324 SF $17.00 $5,508.00 $29.00 $9,396.00 $66.00 $21,384.00 $105.00 $34,020.00 $54.25 Total= $7,508.00 $14,696.00 $23,154.00 $38,175.00 Additive Bid 42:Location 6R-13A Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB42a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $3,056.25 Install River Washed Granite AB42b Cobblestones 300 SF $17.00 $5,100.00 $29.00 $8,700.00 $66.00 $19,800.00 $105.00 $31,500.00 $54.25 AB42c Construct Concrete Header 3 LF $75.00 $225.00 $50.00 $150.00 $39.00 $117.00 $338.00 $1,014.00 $125.50 Total= $6,825.00 $13,650.00 $21,687.00 $36,669.00 Page 118 Additive Bid 43:Location 6R-13B Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB43a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,431.25 Install River Washed Granite AB43b Cobblestones 129 SF $17.00 $2,193.00 $29.00 $3,741.00 $66.00 $8,514.00 $105.00 $13,545.00 $54.25 AB43c Construct Concrete Header 11 LF $75.00 $825.00 $50.00 $550.00 $39.00 $429.00 $338.00 $3,718.00 $125.50 Total= $4,018.00 $7,091.00 $10,713.00 $21,418.00 Additive Bid 44:Location 6R-14E Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB44a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,900.00 $2,900.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,456.25 Install River Washed Granite AB44b Cobblestones 126 SF $17.00 $2,142.00 $29.00 $3,654.00 $66.00 $8,316.00 $105.00 $13,230.00 $54.25 AB44c Construct Concrete Header 10 LF $75.00 $750.00 $50.00 $500.00 $39.00 $390.00 $338.00 $3,380.00 $125.50 Total= $3,892.00 $7,054.00 $10,476.00 $20,765.00 _ J Additive Bid 45:Location 6R-14W Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB45a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $800.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 J $2,281.25 Install River Washed Granite AB45b Cobblestones 126 SF $17.00 $2,142.00 $29.00 $3,654.00 $66.00 $8,316.00 $105.00 $13,230.00 $54.25 AB45c Construct Concrete Header 9 LF $75.00 $675.00 $50.00 $450.00 $39.00 $351.00 $338.00 $3,042.00 $125.50 Total= $3,617.00 $6,504.00 $10,437.00 $20,427.00 Additive Bid 46:Location 6R-15 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB46a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,756.25 Install River Washed Granite AB46b Cobblestones 230 SF $17.00 $3,910.00 $29.00 $6,670.00 $66.00 $15,180.00 $105.00 $24,150.00 _ $54.25 AB46c Construct Concrete Header 11 LF $75.00 $825.00 $50.00 $550.00 $39.00 $429.00 $338.00 $3,718.00 $125.50 Total $5,935.00 $11,120.00 $17,379.00 $32,023.00 Landscape Maintenance District 9R($12,000) Additive Bid 47:Location 9R-1 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB47a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,256.25 Install River Washed Granite AB47b Cobblestones 96 SF $17.00 $1,632.00 $29.00 $2,784.00 $66.00 $6,336.00 $105.00 $10,080.00 $54.25 Total= $2,132.00 $5,384.00 $8,106.00 $14,235.00 Additive Bid 48:Location 9R-2 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB48a lines),etc.from project site _ 1 LS $700.00 $700.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,356.25 Install River Washed Granite AB48b Cobblestones 120 SF $17.00 $2,040.00 $29.00 $3,480.00 $66.00 $7,920.00 $105.00 $12,600.00 $54.25 Total= $2,740.00 $6,280.00 $9,690.00 $16,755.00 Additive Bid 49:Location 9R-3 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB49a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $3,350.00 $3,350.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,443.75 Install River Washed Granite AB49b Cobblestones 110 SF $17.00 $1,870.00 $29.00 $3,190.00 $66.00 $7,260.00 $105.00 $11,550.00 _ $54.25 AB49c Construct Concrete Header 6 LF $75.00 $450.00 $50.00 $300.00 $39.00 $234.00 $338.00 $2,028.00 $125.50 Total= $2,820.00 $6,840.00 $9,264.00 $17,733.00 Additive Bid 50:Location 9R-4 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB50a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,406.25 Install River Washed Granite ABSOb Cobblestones 154 SF $17.00 $2,618.00 $29.00 $4,466.00 $66.00 $10,164.00 $105.00 $16,170.00 $54.25 AB50c Construct Concrete Header 8 LF $75.00 $600.00 $50.00 $400.00 $39.00 $312.00 $338.00 $2,704.00 $125.50 Total= $3,718.00 $8,066.00 $12,246.00 $23,029.00 Landscape Maintenance District 10($20,000) Additive Bid 51:Location 10R-1 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB51a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $3,856.25 Install River Washed Granite AB51b Cobblestones 684 SF $17.00 $11,628.00 $29.00 $19,836.00 $66.00 $45,144.00 $105.00 $71,820.00 $54.25 Total= $14,628.00 $26,336.00 $46,914.00 $75,975.00 - Additive Bid 52:Location 10R-2 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB52a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,300.00 $2,300.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,356.25 Install River Washed Granite AB52b Cobblestones 255 SF $17.00 $4,335.00 $29.00 $7,395.00 $66.00 $16,830.00 $105.00 $26,775.00 $54.25 Total= $5,535.00 $9,695.00 $18,600.00 $30,930.00 Additive Bid 53:Location 10R-3 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB53a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $700.00 $700.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 _ $2,156.25 Install River Washed Granite AB53b Cobblestones 130 SF $17.00 $2,210.00 $29.00 $3,770.00 $66.00 $8,580.00 $105.00 $13,650.00 $54.25 Total= $2,910.00 $5,770.00 $10,350.00 $17,805.00 Additive Bid 54:Location 10R-4 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB54a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,106.25 Install River Washed Granite A854b Cobblestones 75 SF _ $17.00 $1,275.00 $29.00 $2,175.00 $66.00 $4,950.00 $105.00 $7,875.00 $54.25 AB54c Construct Concrete Header 12 LF $75.00 $900.00 $50.00 $600.00 $39.00 $468.00 $338.00 $4,056.00 $125.50 Total= $2,675.00 $4,775.00 $7,188.00 $16,086.00 _ Additive Bid 55:Location 10R-5 _ L Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB55a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $800.00 $800.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $2,381.25 Page 119 Install River Washed Granite ABS5b Cobblestones 175 SF $17.00 $2,975.00 $29.00 $5,075.00 $66.00 $11,550.00 $105.00 $18,375.00 $54.25 Total= $3,775.00 $7,875.00 $13,320.00 $22,530.00 Central Park($22,100) Additive Bid 56:Location 1 Remove Existing Vegetation, Hardscape,Irrigation(Including cap AB56a lines),etc.from project site 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,770.00 $1,770.00 $4,155.00 $4,155.00 $3,356.25 Install River Washed Granite AB56b Cobblestones 1105 SF $17.00 $18,785.00 $29.00 $32,045.00 $66.00 $72,930.00 $105.00 $116,025.00 $54.25 Total= $21,785.00 $36,545.00 $74,700.00 $120,180.00 ATTACHMENT 1-BID SUMMARY Page 120 Enkr- r-FCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rr DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Ernie Perez, Chief of Police Jerry Davenport, Administrative Lieutenant Karen Hunt, Sheriffs Service Specialist SUBJECT: Consideration of an Appropriation in the Amount of$40,580 and Approval to Purchase Equipment in the Amount of$40,580 from Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the appropriation of grant funds in the amount of $40,580 from the United States Department of Justice, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for 2017 and 2018 fiscal years' awards and approve the purchase of equipment for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. BACKGROUND: Byrne Justice Assistance (BJA) recently announced the availability of grant funds to state and local units of government through the Byrne JAG Grant. This program allows state and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system. On September 2, 2020, the City Council approved the acceptance of funds for JAG fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019. This item will amend the previous request for funds. ANALYSIS: The equipment to be purchased from the previously mentioned grants would be as follows: FY 2017 1. Five Mobile Data Computers (MDC). These five MDC's would be assigned for the specific use of Field Training Officers (FTO) while training a new Deputy. $21,318 *The cost of the five MDC's ($27,375) is greater than the total of the 2017 JAG Grant ($21,318). As a result, the FY 2018 will supplement the difference ($6,057) to purchase the five MDC's. FY 2018 1. Supplement funding from FY 2017 to purchase remaining MDC's. $6,057 2. A double tier, 6 door, temporary evidence locker. $1,525 3. A computer to be used for forensic analysis. $3,490 4. A wide screen, computer monitor to be used with the forensic computer. $376 5. Amped Five computer software to work hand in hand with our surveillance footage to obtain better images for investigation purposes. $7,800 Page 121 FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed purchases will assist the personnel at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department in training new deputies, analyzing surveillance images and safely securing evidence in a temporary manner when appropriate. The following appropriations are requested: FY 2017 Grant Funds $21,318: • $21,318 to 1361701-5212 O&M/Capital Supplies FY 2018 Grant Funds $19,248: • $ 7,800 to 1361701-5200 Operations and Maintenance • $ 1,530 to 1361701-5207 O&M/Computer Equipment • $ 9,930 to 1361701-5215 O&M/Capital Supplies • $19,260 to 1361701-4740 Grant income - Other COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The upcoming projects will align with the following Council Core Values: #2 Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all. #4 Intentionally embracing and anticipating the future. ATTACHMENTS: No attachments. Page 2 Page 122 rn1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r_2 DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Michael Frasure, Building and Safety Services Director Clarence de Guzman, Management Analyst I SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Interwest Consulting Group for Plan Checks and Inspection Services in the Amount of$10,000. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract 18-088 to increase the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget with Interwest Consulting Group for Plan Checks and Inspection Services in the amount of$10,000. BACKGROUND: Over the last several years, Interwest Consulting Group has been providing contract plan checks and inspection services on many large and unique construction projects for the Building and Safety Services Department. The department has a contract with Willdan Group who provides similar services and will be the source of fund reallocation in this transaction. The current contract with Interwest was initiated on July 1, 2018, with the option for up to three 12-month extensions. Due to a continued robust economy and the high volume of projects currently being submitted to the department, the services provided by this firm are required to maintain excellent customer service and accommodate the needs of the development community in obtaining timely approvals for building plan checks and inspections. ANALYSIS: The City's contract with Interwest Consulting Group for FY 2021/22 is $75,000. The need to send plan reviews to outside consultants and augment inspection staffing continues. However, each of these companies offers specialty services therefore, reallocation of $10,000.00 from Willdan to Interwest is necessary to close out the 21/22 FY. Staff is requesting $10,000 from Contract 2022- 020 with Willdan to Contract 18-088 with Interwest Consulting Group and to authorize the Building and Safety Services Director to execute the amendment accordingly. Amendments are on file in the City Clerk's Office. FISCAL IMPACT: Reallocation of $10,000 to Expenditure Account Number 1001302-5300 (Contract Services) for FY 2021/22 funded by plan check and inspection revenues. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item supports the City Council's core values of providing and nurturing a high quality of life Page 123 for all, as well as promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 2 Page 124 (1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst III SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to Contract CO 19-187 with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for Citywide Tree Maintenance Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,377,000. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve Amendment No. 4 to contract CO 19-187 with West Coast Arborists, Inc., extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2023, in an amount not to exceed $1,377,000. BACKGROUND: On December 4, 2019, the City Council awarded contract CO 19-187 to West Coast Arborists, Inc. for citywide tree maintenance services. These services include grid trimming, pruning, tree removals, stump grinding, planting, staking, pest control, fertilizing, watering, emergency response, and arborist services for City owned and maintained trees. The areas of work include LMDs, CFDs, PD85, and General Fund parkways, paseos, medians, parks, and City facilities. This contract has an option to renew in one year increments up to a total of seven years ending on June 30, 2027. If approved, Amendment No. 4 to contract CO 19-187 will extend the term of the contract to June 30, 2023, with an 8.0% rate increase and no changes to the scope of work, service levels, or other terms and conditions. ANALYSIS: West Coast Arborists, Inc. has submitted a Letter of Intent expressing their desire to continue providing service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga during FY 2022/23 with an 8.0% rate increase. The requested increase is 1.4% below the change in the May Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). West Coast Arborists, Inc. continues to meet the service needs of the City and staff recommends the City Council approve the renewal of contract CO 19-187 effective July 1, 2022 and approve the spending limit of$1,377,000 for FY 2022/23. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed FY 2022/23 Budget includes $1,147,330 for citywide tree maintenance services. The funding breakdown is shown in the following table: Page 125 Funding Account Source Amount 1001318-5650 Streets Maintenance $50,000 1001319-5310 Parks Maintenance $376,470 1130303-5310 LMD 1 $120,600 1131303-5310 LMD 2 $231,830 1133303-5310 LMD 3B $26,710 1133320-5310 LMD 3B- Metrolink $5,000 1134303-5310 LMD 4R $78,290 1136303-5310 LMD 6R $66,900 1137303-5310 LMD 7 $67,920 1138303-5310 LMD 8 $5,730 1139303-5310 LMD 9 $33,310 1140303-5310 LMD 10 $23,410 1700312-5310 Sports Complex $34,000 1848303-5310 PD 85 $22,160 1868303-5310 CFD 2000-03 $5,000 Total $1,147,330 The contract spending limit of $1,377,000 includes a contingency of $229,670 for unforeseen work resulting from wind events or other emergencies. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 2 Page 126 rn1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r_2 DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Trina Valdez, Utilities Operations Supervisor SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment No. 05 to the Professional Services Agreement with Magellan Advisors, LLC (CO18-103) for Fiber Optic Project Management and Design Services for Fiscal Year 2022/23. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize Amendment No. 05 for the renewal of Professional Services Agreement (CO18-103) with Magellan Advisors, LLC in the amount of $100,000 for Fiscal Year 2022/23. BACKGROUND: In 2018, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Magellan Advisors, LLC entered into a Professional Services Agreement (CO18-103) to provide the necessary design, engineering, permitting, and project management for the distribution of the fiber optic network as part of the City's Fiber Optic Master Plan, including the operational parameters to connect the new fiber backbone to the existing infrastructure. ANALYSIS: As the Rancho Broadband network continues to expand, design services and project management are necessary for new development in determining new fiber connections and line extension opportunities for the Fiber Optic Master Plan. During Fiscal Year 2021/22, the Magellan team completed eight Task Order designs totaling approximately $861,000 in new fiber optic infrastructure in the expansion of the network and keeps track of the fiber strand assignments dedicated to each project. Additionally, the Magellan team continues to coordinate bi-weekly project update meetings with City staff, our Internet Service Provider, Onward, and our Fiber Optic construction team, Elecnor Belco. In FY2022/23, the Magellan Team will continue to work on designing and expanding the network, which includes the Business Parks along Haven Avenue between Sixth Street and Trademark Avenue and the expansion of the network along Arrow Route to serve the new Southeast Industrial developments. Given Magellan Advisor's detailed knowledge of the project and master plan, along with their qualifications and expertise in the field, it is recommended that the City continue utilizing their services to monitor and provide oversight of the fiber design to ensure the project scope is maintained and achieved. A copy of Amendment No. 05 is available in the City Clerk's office. Page 127 FISCAL IMPACT: Funds from the Fiber Optic Network Fund (Fund 711) in the amount of $100,000 is included in Account 1711303-5650/1910711-0 (Capital Projects— RC Fiber Optic Network). COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The implementation of the Fiber Optic Master Plan will enhance the City's mission to embrace and anticipate the future of the community through an enhanced 21st century infrastructure that is critical for economic development for existing and new businesses as well as residential customers. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 2 Page 128 rn1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r_2 DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Veronica Fincher, Director Animal Services SUBJECT: Consideration of a Multi-Year Agreement with DocuPet Corp. for Pet Licensing Services Not to Exceed $112,500. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve an Agreement with DocuPet Corp. for Pet Licensing Services not to exceed $112,500 ($22,500 annually for a period of five years). BACKGROUND: California law requires that all dogs over the age of four months are vaccinated for rabies and are licensed in their respective cities. The Animal Services Department is responsible for enforcing the rabies vaccine and pet license laws. The Pet Licensing Program is essential to protect the public and their pets from rabies and is a source of revenue that offsets the cost of the City's animal care programs. The Department is currently using Chameleon Software Systems to maintain the pet licensing database. The Department's staff performs all administrative functions for the Licensing Program including data entry, processing new and renewal license notices, customer service, answering phone calls, and updating thousands of animal records annually. ANALYSIS: The Animal Services Department has limited administrative staff to support the clerical and customer service portions of the current Pet Licensing Program offered by Chameleon Software Systems. Therefore, research was conducted to determine options for other Pet Licensing Programs and software systems. DocuPet is the only full-service pet licensing service provider currently working with local animal welfare agencies (i.e., Inland Valley Humane Society & S.P.C.A and Pasadena Humane Society). By outsourcing the Pet Licensing Program to DocuPet, the Department can fulfill its goal to enhance our residents experience with purchasing a license and reuniting lost pets with owners. Additionally, it will increase license compliance rates and allow the Department's staff to have greater focus on other animal care programs. DocuPet offers a comprehensive full-service Pet Licensing Program that includes: • A dedicated customer service hotline to assist residents with licensing their pet. • User friendly online access to purchase or renew an animal license in addition to traditional in-person and mail options. • Renewal reminders are sent via email, mail, and automated phone calls. • Residents can create a pet profile to store their pet's records and emergency information. Page 129 • Residents can purchase customized designer animal license tags. A portion of the purchase for upgraded tags (a free tag is provided) benefits the Rancho Cucamonga Animal Care Foundation. • Free HomeSafeTM lost pet service. DocuPet staff are available 24/7, 365, to assist in reuniting a pet wearing a DocuPet tag with its owner. • Routine communication with pet owners throughout the year regarding Animal Services updates and thanking them for licensing their pet. Animal Services will continue to enforce the pet licensing laws. License fees for dogs and cats (optional) will remain at the current fees and be assessed as needed through the City's normal fee schedule update process. A copy of the DocuPet agreement is on file with the City Clerk's Office. FISCAL IMPACT: $22,500 annually. Total Agreement not to exceed $112,500. Revenues associated with the Pet Licensing Program are budgeted in Fiscal Year 2022/23 at $255,000. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Providing a Pet Licensing Program that is customer service oriented and in compliance with state laws contributes to promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all and the relentless pursuit of improvement. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 2 Page 130 (1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst III SUBJECT: Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. for LMD 2 Parkway, Paseo, and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,443,188. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Award and authorize the execution of a professional services agreement (PSA) for "LMD 2 Parkway, Paseo, and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance" with Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. of Irwindale, California, effective July 1, 2022 for a one-year term with an option to renew in one year increments up to a total of six additional years 2. Authorize an expenditure in an amount not to exceed $1,443,188 3. Appropriate $255,360 from LMD 2 fund balance to account 1131303-5300 BACKGROUND: City Council awarded a contract to Landscape West Management Services, Inc. for "LMD 2 Parkway, Paseo, and Median Island Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance"on April 1, 2020. The initial term of the contract was fourteen months with an option to renew in one year increments up to a total of six additional years. Amendment No. 1, extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2022, was subsequently approved by City Council on September 1, 2021. Staff reached out to Landscape West on April 7, 2022, to begin discussions regarding the potential renewal of the contract for an additional year. Landscape West requested a meeting to discuss irrigation issues and other challenges they face with maintaining the landscape in LMD 2. During the meeting held on April 13, 2022, Landscape West neither accepted nor declined the City's offer to renew the contract for an additional year. At the time, Landscape West indicated they needed another month to evaluate the contract and make a decision regarding the proposed renewal. On May 12, 2022, the City received a letter from Landscape West declining to renew the contract for FY 2022/23. The letter indicated Landscape West has been losing money on the contract and cannot afford to provide service for an additional year. To obtain these necessary services in a timely manner, staff reviewed the original RFP (#19/20- 012) to see if there was another eligible vendor to perform these services. During the initial procurement, an evaluation committee scored and ranked the five responsive proposals in Page 131 accordance with the RFP evaluation criteria. Landscape West and Mariposa Landscapes tied as the top ranked vendor followed by Terracare Associates in third place. The top three vendors were invited to be interviewed and given an opportunity to present additional information to enhance their proposal submittals. Vendors were evaluated and rated based on their presentation and responses to pre-determined questions from the evaluation committee. Landscape West received the highest overall rating followed by Mariposa Landscapes and was originally awarded the contract. After the interview, Terracare Associates withdrew their RFP submittals for the three landscape contracts that had been posted concurrently as their proposals were contingent upon being awarded all three contracts. Following receipt of Landscape West's letter declining to renew their contract, staff entered negotiations with Mariposa Landscapes to determine if they were interested in, and able to take over, landscape maintenance in LMD 2 at the expiration of the current contract with Landscape West on June 30, 2022. Following negotiations regarding price and terms, the City and Mariposa tentatively agreed on an initial one-year term with an option to renew in one-year increments for an additional six years, clarification of the tree maintenance requirements and pricing adjustments to bring the rates up to the current costs from what was originally proposed in August 2019. ANALYSIS: Mariposa Landscapes has over thirty years of experience providing superior landscape maintenance services to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and consistently places in the top two when we solicit proposals. The tentatively agreed upon price of $90,550 per month for A level service, while more than current costs, is within the range of the proposed prices submitted pursuant to RFP 19/20-012 when adjusted for inflation. Addendum No. 1 to the PSA modifies certain language to clarify the City's original intent for tree maintenance services in LMD 2. Mariposa Landscapes has the capacity to ramp up and provide landscape maintenance services for LMD 2 immediately. Therefore, staff recommends City Council award a contract to Mariposa Landscape, Inc., effective July 1, 2022, for an initial one-year term with an option to renew in one year increments up to a total of six additional years, in an amount not to exceed $1,443,188 for FY 2022/23. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract price for scheduled maintenance will increase $295,000 compared to the current contract price for FY 2021/22, which has remained unchanged since this service was originally bid three years ago. The price increase reflects the current cost of providing "A" level service in LMD 2 and is within the range of the proposed prices submitted pursuant to RFP 19/20-012 when adjusted for inflation. These new contract rates were not anticipated during the budget process, necessitating an additional appropriation of $255,360 from fund balance to account 1131303- 5300. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all while providing high quality outdoor spaces. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 2 Page 132 rn1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r_2 DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Sean McPherson, Senior Planner Clarence de Guzman, Management Analyst I SUBJECT: Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers for the Completion of the Healthy RC Active Transportation Infrastructure Assessment and Improvement Plan in the Amount of$374,966 plus a 5% Contingency, and Authorization of Appropriations from the State Grant (Fund 274) and Citywide Capital Infrastructure (Fund 198) Funds. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve and authorize the execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers (on file with the City Clerk) for the completion of the Healthy RC Active Transportation Infrastructure Assessment and Improvement Plan in the amount of$374,966; 2. Authorize a contingency in the amount of$18,748 to be released by the Director of Engineering Services as required for completion of the project; 3. Authorize appropriation of Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant revenue in the amount of$341,970 to the State Grant Fund (Fund 274); and 4. Authorize appropriations of expenditures in the amount of $341,970 from the State Grant Fund (Fund 274) and $51,760 from the Citywide Infrastructure Improvements Fund (Fund 198). BACKGROUND: In 2020, the City was awarded a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant to develop its Healthy RC Active Transportation Infrastructure Assessment and Improvement Plan (HRC ATP). The City initiated a Request for Proposals (RFP #21/22-002) to seek a qualified vendor to work with staff to develop the HRC ATP. On November 17, 2021, the City Council authorized and entered into a contractual agreement with Toole Design Group, LLC (Toole Design), ranked first in vendor evaluations, to complete this project. The HRC ATP will assess current infrastructure, identify improvements and new infrastructure, and provide a prioritized list of projects covering areas within a two-mile radius of Rancho Cucamonga's 23 public elementary schools, 8 public middle schools, and 4 public high schools. This plan will result in customized project tear sheets that identify shovel-ready projects, which Page 133 may be used when applying for future grant opportunities such as the Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP), as well as for capital improvement budget planning purposes. This opportunity ultimately provides a comprehensive short and long-term plan to fill gaps in the City's sidewalk network, increasing and improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to enhance connectivity between neighborhoods, schools, and municipal facilities. During the initial several months of working with Toole Design, however, there has been a significant disconnect between the City's expectations and vision for the plan and Toole Design's ability to deliver a quality work product on time. Upon careful consideration, it was determined that it was in the best interest of both parties to terminate the contract. Toole Design's original contract was for $349,882 plus a 10% contingency ($34,988), for a total of $384,870. With $24,000.50 already paid against the contract for work products delivered, it leaves a current unexpended balance on the contract of$325,881.50 plus contingency, for a total of$360,869.50. ANALYSIS: Given the City's firm commitment to advance its vision for a more resilient, equitable, and healthy community, City Staff has determined that the best way forward to successfully deliver this project will be to engage in discussions with Fehr & Peers, which was ranked second in vendor evaluations for RFP #21/22-002. City staff and Fehr& Peers have agreed on a path forward to continue the work on this project and to formally enter into a professional services agreement. Based on previous work completed by Toole Design and other cost-saving measures, a revised Best and Final Offer(BAFO)was submitted by Fehr& Peers with a fee in the amount of$374,966 for the completion of the HRC ATP. Staff has determined that Fehr & Peers is able to meet the needs of the City based on their qualifications, experience, scope, and fee schedule. Fehr & Peers' scope of work includes engagement of key staff and stakeholders to identify potential active transportation infrastructure improvements; assessment and prioritization of new infrastructure or infrastructure improvements; development of project tear sheets; and preparation of the final plan. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated cost for the proposed contract is $393,730. Upon completion of the project, the City will be eligible for reimbursement of 88.53% of the contract costs from the Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant Program or up to $354,116 of the grant award. The grant program requires at least an 11.47% match from local funds. With the proposed contract budget and the remaining grant revenue available, the City's total match is expected to be $51,760. Budget for this project has not been included in the FY2022/23 Budget, therefore, appropriations are needed to account for both grant revenue and project expenditures in the following amounts and accounts: Revenue: Account No. Funding Source Description Amount 1274000-4760/2083-0 State Grants (274) Caltrans Grant Revenue - HRC $341,970 Active Transportation Plan Expenditures: 'Account No. Funding Source Description Amount 1274208-5300/2083-4215 State Grants (274) Caltrans Grant Revenue - HRC $341,970 Active Transportation Plan Page 2 Page 134 1198303-5300/2083-4215 Citywide Infrastructure City Match - HRC Active $51,760 Improvements (198) Transportation Plan Total $393,730 COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This project meets our City Council core values by promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all,and by providing for continuous improvement by planning for future construction of high-quality public improvements. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 3 Page 135 r r- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA an 7- cri DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of Approval of an Improvement Agreement for Design Review DRC2016-00295, for the Construction of a 108-Room Hotel Located on the South Side of Foothill Avenue Approximately 420 Feet West of Masi Drive. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve a one-year Improvement Agreement for DRC2016-00295, on file with the City Clerk, and accept associated security. BACKGROUND: DRC2016-00295, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard approximately 420 feet west of Masi Drive, was approved by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2016. This project is for the construction of a 108-room hotel on 1.41 acres of land. The applicant is requesting a certificate of occupancy from the City with outstanding on-site improvements to be completed. The outstanding improvements include a bus shelter and the necessary appurtenances to complete the bus shelter. The developer, KTM Hospitality Group, LLC, has submitted a request for a 12-month Improvement Agreement along with the associated security. Completion of the private improvements has been delayed due to the developer's progress on the project. ANALYSIS: The developer is ready to complete final improvements and anticipates completion within the requested time allotted by the improvement agreement. The developer also provided the security listed below on June 30, 2022, to guarantee the construction of the public improvements (Attachment 3)." Faithful Performance Cash Deposit $ 48,500 Labor and Material Cash Deposit $ 48,500 FISCAL IMPACT: None Page 136 COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's vision for the City by ensuring the maintenance of high- quality improvements that promote a world-class community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 — Invoice Summary Page 2 Page 137 Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE i W a i R .." S:AAf lfl Blvd L x 1IILp CM IfozGni MO fifi yy yWU OWE J ARUM nWfl gc `Y Blvd IThCarin CM kcdifil COW o Men PaA 4�a3® G6Jns-.,:: N rim91 I 11 I Agoes USG g@ lisois 63 Site /1\1 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 138 Invoice Summary RANCHO ARCO CUCAMONGA Invoice# 176514 Record# ROW2022-00292-Land Development Construction Permit Project Address: Invoice Date: 06/30/2022 Applicant Shahin Shaath ARCO Fee Item Fee Amt Fee Paid Balance GL Code Trans Code Cash Bond Deposit $48,500.00 $48,500.00 $0.00 1882000-2314 T404 Cash Bond Deposit $48,500.00 $48,500.00 $0.00 1882000-2314 T404 Total Fee: $97,000.00 $97,000.00 $0.00 If this project requires a Contractor(s) to perform any construction work please be advised that all Contractors working within the City of Rancho Cucamonga must possess a current City Business License and CA State Contractor's License (with the appropriate licensing type based on the type of work to be performed)prior to pulling a Building Permit.Failure to produce this information will delay permit issuance. www.CityofRC.us Attpg e n t 2 rn1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r_2 DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning SUBJECT: Consideration of Contracts with Torti Gallas + Associates, Arthur Gensler and Associates, PlaceWorks and Sargent Town Planning for On-Call Urban Design Consulting Services. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and execute professional service agreements with Torti Gallas + Associates, Arthur Gensler and Associates, PlaceWorks and Sargent Town Planning for On-Call Urban Design Consulting Services. BACKGROUND: Over the last several years, there has been need on occasion to enlist the help of professionals with a focus on urban design to assist staff as new development is proposed. Sometimes, those professionals provided guidance to staff on enhancements to better fit the vision of the City. We have also used these professionals for staff development and training or to provide basic conceptual drawings for our Economic Development team to attract new businesses, showing how their business may fit into a particular location. As we build out the vision laid out in the General Plan, these design professionals can also develop vision plans for focus areas of the City, such as the Civic Center. Engaging these consultants for each project requires the creation and execution of a contract for each individual project. Moreover, in each case, the City has an immediate need for a very narrow scope of services. Having design expertise on-call and under contract provides the City with the ability to quickly and efficiently respond to economic development and development review needs. To reduce contract redundancies and streamline the procurement process, a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ)was prepared to create an "on-call" consultant list for Urban Design services that can be utilized by any City department. ANALYSIS: The Planning Department provided a detailed scope of services to the Procurement Division for the purposes of creating a qualified vendor list for "on-call" Urban Design consulting services. A formal Request for Statement of Qualifications ("SOQ")#20/21-502 was posted and advertised in the City's electronic bidding system. There were one thousand five hundred and eighty (1050) notified vendors, ninety-four (94) prospective vendors downloaded or reviewed the bid documentation and eighteen (18) responses were received. An evaluation panel was formed, and the proposal responses were evaluated and rated in accordance with the criteria identified in the SOQ. The top four(4)firms meeting the SOQ requirements were selected. These firms are: Torti Page 140 Gallas + Associates, Arthur Gensler and Associates, PlaceWorks and Sargent Town Planning. Once the "on-call" contracts are executed, the consultants can be contacted as needed and will be selected for a project based on project need and consultant's availability. The consultant's work under each individual contract will have to be authorized by the City. Consultants selected are not guaranteed work but are available if/as needed for work up to the contracted amount over the course of the contract term. FISCAL IMPACT: Urban design services for private development projects are expected to be funded by the project applicant through a reimbursable account. For public projects, funding for urban design services would be appropriated as part of an approved project budget. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The execution of these contracts supports the council's value of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future by streamlining the procurement process to quickly utilize a bench of qualified on call design consultants to assist with projects as needed. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Letter of Intent to Award Urban Design On-Call Contracts. Page 2 Page 141 Mayor L.Dennis Michael I Mayor Pro Tern Lynne B.Kennedy Council Members Ryan A.Hutchison, Kristine D.Scott,Sam Spagnolo City Manager John R.Gillison �r � CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Q ( � 10500 Civic Center Drive I Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91 730 1909.477.2700 I www.CityofRC.us January 31, 2022 Re: Letter of Intent to Award for Request for Statement of Qualifications ("SOQ") #20/21-502 for Urban Design Services - Qualified Consultants List Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you for participating in and submitting a response to the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter the "City") SOQ#20/21-502 for Urban Design Services - Quaffed Consultants List. The City has completed its evaluation process of the Vendor responses. The recommended award for this solicitation is to PlaceWorks of Santa Ana, California, Tort Gallas + Partners of Los Angeles, California, Sargent Town Planning, Inc. of Los Angeles, California, and M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates of Los Angeles, California. Final award and receipt of a Purchase Order is contingent upon receipt of a signed Professional Services Agreement ("PSA") with all required certificates of insurance, a valid City of Rancho Cucamonga business license, and City Council approval. The City appreciates your continued business interest and trusts that there will be various opportunities in the future for your participation. Please ensure that you visit the City's website at www.CityofRC.US to update your vendor portal in Planet Bids. You will receive electronic notifications by way of e-mail advising you of new business opportunities when they become available. If you have any questions or would like further information about this Letter of Intent, please feel free to contact me directly at 909-774- 2508 or via email at Hector.Velazquez@cityofrc.us. Sincerely, Hector Velazquez, Procurement Technician City of Rancho Cucamonga Procurement Division Attachment 1 Page 142 rn1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r_2 DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jennifer Hunt Gracia, Community Services Director SUBJECT: Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with San Bernardino County for the Rehabilitation of the Rancho Cucamonga Family Resource Center. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement with San Bernardino County for the rehabilitation of the Rancho Cucamonga Family Resource Center using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Program funds in the amount of $775,000 that have been tentatively awarded to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BACKGROUND: The American Rescue Plan Act was signed into law in March 2021, establishing the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Program. This program was established to support local governments, in part, in containing the economic and public health impacts of COVID-19 on residents and businesses. San Bernardino County received a disbursement of those funds and solicited inquiries from local government agencies for the use of those funds in early 2022. City staff submitted a proposal that was tentatively accepted, pending execution of the contract, for the rehabilitation of the Rancho Cucamonga Family Resource Center(Center) using $775,000 of those SLFRF funds. The Center has served as a hub for social services, recreation classes, family gatherings, and community special events for many years. The onset of the pandemic and subsequent closure of the facility, eliminated all but the most critical of these services: the weekly food pantry, holiday food drives and giveaways, and back-to-school backpack giveaway. To mitigate the loss of services due the pandemic and expand opportunity to those in the community that were disproportionately impacted, the City installed a 24/7 Library Vending Machine in 2021. Most recently, the Center has served as a COVID-19 testing and vaccination site for the region. ANALYSIS: The County has determined that the proposed rehabilitation and improvements to the Center as an eligible use of the ARPA SLFRF funds, under Project Expenditure Category "2.37, Economic Impact Assistance: Other". As proposed to the County, the ARPA SLFRF funds will be utilized for the rehabilitation of the Center including Heating & Air Conditioning Replacement; Repaint Exterior and Interior; Flooring Replacement; Interior Courtyard Improvements; Lighting Replacement; and Kitchen Improvements. Funds will be provided based as a reimbursement of actual expenditures and all funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and expended by Page 143 December 31, 2026. These much-needed improvements to the Center will ensure this vital community resource will be available to those disproportionally impacted by the pandemic. Upon completion of the improvements, it is anticipated that a variety of services and programs will be offered at the Center: COVID-19 vaccinations and testing; PPE & testing supply distribution; emergency operations / emergency sheltering; isolation & quarantine support; support for local schools (1 elementary school & 1 middle school within % mile); support low-income senior congregate Living Facility (across the street); support for small businesses and non-profits (enhance the current offering); behavioral health care (e.g. support groups, counseling); community intervention programs; food pantry; tutoring; annual Thanksgiving and holidays food drive & give-away; Back -to-School Backpack Drive & Give-Away; youth &family recreation classes; senior recreation and social service programs; community gatherings (birthday parties, Quinceaneras, weddings); English as a Second Language (ESL) classes; literacy & adult education classes; and religious services. The contract with San Bernardino County is on file with City Clerk's Office. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for the project were included in the Adopted Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget in the amount of $775,0000 within the City's Capital Reserve Fund 1025001-5650/2107025-0. It is requested that the budgeted expenditure funds be transferred to the City's Federal Grants Fund (1275208- 5650/2107275-0) and revenue reimbursements us Federal Grants Fund (1275000-4750/2107-0). COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This project supports the City Council's vision of building on our success as a world class community guided by the values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community, intentionally embracing and anticipating the future, equitable prosperity for all, and relentless pursuit of improvement. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 2 Page 144 THE INFORMATION IN THIS BOX IS NOT A PART OF THE CONTRACT AND IS FOR COUNTY USE ONLY Contract Number ARPA21-PRJC-006-RAN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAP Number County Administrative Office Department Contract Representative Matthew Erickson, County Chief Financial Officer Telephone Number (909) 387-5423 Contractor City of Rancho Cucamonga DUNS No. 007052970 UEI No. EMSUMALW41M5 Contractor Representative Ryan Samples, Community Services Supervisor Telephone Number 909-774-2213 Contract Term 07/01/2022 through 12/31/2026 Original Contract Amount Based on actual project costs not to exceed $775,000 Amendment Amount Total Contract Amount Based on actual project costs not to exceed $775,000 Cost Center 1100921078 Internal Order (If Applicable) 1012321 CONTRACT BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RELATED TO THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT AND THE CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the State of California declared a state of emergency as a result of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak and on March 13, 2020, by Proclamation 9994, the President declared a national emergency concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause significant risk to the public health and safety of the United States; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was signed into law by the President and the law is intended to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, including the public health and economic impacts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9901 of the ARPA, San Bernardino County (County) received a disbursement from the United States Department of the Treasury of money associated with the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CLFRF) for Local Governments under Section 603(a) [see 42 U.S.C. Section 803]; and Page 145 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 1 of 37 WHEREAS, the County agreed to comply with the United States Department of the Treasury Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund Award Terms and Conditions (Terms and Conditions), including Assurance of Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Assurance of Compliance with Civil Rights Requirements), identified in the United States Department of the Treasury and San Bernardino County Agreement (OMB Approved No. 1505-0271) (United States Department of the Treasury Agreement), which is on file with the County and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Assistance Listing Number (ALN)/Federal Assistance Identification Number (FAIN) for the ARPA CLFRF is 21.027/SLT-0628 respectively; and WHEREAS, the ARPA provides that payments from the CLFRF may be used for the following: i) to respond to the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19 or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits, or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality; ii) to respond to workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency by providing premium pay to eligible workers that are performing such essential work, or by providing grants to eligible employers that have eligible workers who perform essential work; iii) for the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue due to the COVID-19 public health emergency relative to revenues collected in the most recent full fiscal year prior to the emergency; or iv)to make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure; and WHEREAS, funding provided under ARPA CLFRF must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and expended by December 31, 2026; and WHEREAS, the County desires to transfer and City of Rancho Cucamonga (Contractor) desires to accept a transfer from ARPA CLFRF in the not to exceed amount of $775,000 for expenditures identified in Exhibit "A" related to make general repairs, improvements to, and equipment replacement at the Rancho Cucamonga Family Resource Center to include replacement of the heating and air conditioning systems with ventilation to mitigate COVID-19 and other communicable disease transmission, replacement of flooring, installation of energy efficient lighting, community kitchen improvements, interior and exterior paint and courtyard improvements for outdoor gatherings. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, the County and Contractor agree as follows: 1. THE ARPA CLFRF A. This Contract applies to the following ARPA CLFRF transfers: The transfer by the County of an amount not to exceed $775,000 to Contractor on a reimbursement basis for expenditures identified in Exhibit "A". Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. County acknowledges and agrees that Contractor will be administering the transfer of funds for the expenditures identified in Exhibit "A" by separate contracts. Contractor shall provide the County quarterly reports of actual cash expenditures to date under this Contract, and estimated cash expenditures through December 31st of each year. County, through its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), in the CEO's sole discretion, reserves the right to reduce the transfer amount identified in this Contract with fifteen (15) days advance written notice provided to Contractor. The reduction would be based: A) on Contractor's estimated cash expenditures through December 31st of each year; B) a later determination by the United States Department of the Treasury, or County, that the costs identified in this Contract are ineligible for ARPA CLFRF; or C) a determination by CEO the funds should be utilized in a different manner. Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 2 of 37 B. Contractor certifies that the use of funds that will be submitted for reimbursement from the CLFRF under Paragraph 1.A. and Exhibit "A" of this Contract will be used only to cover those costs that: i) are related to public health or negative economic impact eligible use; and ii) were incurred during the period that begins July 1, 2022 and will end December 31, 2024. For purposes of this Contract and pursuant to federal guidance, expended or obligated costs are costs incurred by Contractor during the time period referenced above that are allowable for reimbursement. Any cost obligated by Contractor as of December 31, 2024, must be expended by December 31, 2026, to meet the eligible costs timeframe as defined by the United States Department of the Treasury. C. Contractor agrees that the funds provided pursuant to this Contract cannot be used: i) as a revenue replacement for lower than expected tax or other revenue collections; ii) for expenditures for which Contractor has received any other emergency COVID-19 supplemental funding (whether federal, state, or private in nature) for that same expense; or iii) as a deposit into any pension fund. D. Contractor shall prepare and submit to County an invoice for reimbursement of eligible funding expenses identified in Paragraph 1.A., above. Invoices may be submitted to County as frequently as monthly. Invoices will be reviewed and approved for compliance with terms of this Contract. County shall reimburse to Contractor the amount of approved invoices submitted within sixty (60) days of receipt. If an invoice is rejected, or revisions are requested, Contractor will work with County to submit the required revisions. E. Both County and Contractor agree to comply with any and all ARPA CLFRF requirements, including but are not limited to the terms included in this Contract, as well as any and all applicable County, Contractor, State, and Federal laws, regulations, policies and procedures pertaining to the funding described in this Contract. County and Contractor shall comply with Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 200 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards), including, but not limited to, Title 2 C.F.R. Section 200.303 (internal control), Title 2 C.F.R. Sections 200.331 through 200.333 (subrecipient monitoring and management), and Title 2 C.F.R. Part 200 Subpart F (audit requirements), as these sections currently exist or may be amended. The use of funds must also adhere to official federal guidance issued or to be issued on what constitutes an eligible expenditure. Any funds expended by Contractor or its subcontractor(s) in any manner that does not adhere to official federal guidance shall be returned to the County. Contractor agrees to comply with all official guidance regarding the ARPA CLFRF. County and Contractor also agree that as additional federal guidance becomes available, an amendment to this Contract may become necessary. If an amendment is required, Contractor agrees to promptly execute the Contract amendment. F. Contractor shall retain documentation of all uses of the funds, including but not limited to invoices and/or sales receipts in a manner consistent with Title 2 C.F.R. Section 200.334 (retention requirements for records). Such documentation shall be produced to County upon request and may be subject to audit. Unless otherwise provided by Federal or State law (whichever is the most restrictive), Contractor shall maintain all documentation connected with its performance under this Contract for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of the last payment made by County or until audit resolution is achieved, whichever is later, and to make all such supporting information available for inspection and audit by representatives of the County, the State or the United States Government during normal business hours at Contractor. Copies will be made and furnished by Contractor upon written request by County. Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 3 of 37 G. Contractor shall establish and maintain an accounting system conforming to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to support Contractor's requests for reimbursement which segregate and accumulate costs of Contractor and produce monthly reports which clearly identify reimbursable costs, matching fund costs (if applicable), and other allowable expenditures by Contractor. Contractor shall provide a monthly report of expenditures under this Contract no later than the 20th day of the following month. H. Contractor shall cooperate in having an audit completed by County, at County's option and expense. Any audit required by ARPA CLFRF and its regulation and United States Treasury guidance will be completed by Contractor at Contractor's expense. I. Contractor shall repay to County any reimbursement for ARPA CLFRF funding that is determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under the ARPA CLFRF within the time period required by the ARPA CLFRF, but no later than one hundred twenty (120) days of Contractor receiving notice of audit findings, which time shall include an opportunity for Contractor to respond to and/or resolve the findings. Should the findings not be otherwise resolved and Contractor fail to reimburse moneys due County within one hundred twenty (120) days of audit findings, or within such other period as may be agreed between both parties or required by the ARPA CLFRF, County reserves the right to withhold future payments due Contractor from any source under County's control. J. Contractor shall accept all payments from County via electronic funds transfer (EFT) directly deposited into the Contractor's designated checking or other bank account. Contractor shall promptly comply with directions and accurately complete forms provided by County required to process EFT payments. K. County is exempt from Federal excise taxes and no payment shall be made for any personal property taxes levied on Contractor or on any taxes levied on employee wages. The County shall only pay for any State or local sales or use taxes on the services rendered or equipment and/or parts supplied to the County pursuant to the Contract. L. Funds made available under this Contract shall not supplant any federal, state or any governmental funds intended for services of the same nature as this Contract. Contractor shall not claim reimbursement or payment from County for, or apply sums received from County with respect to that portion of its obligations that have been paid by another source of revenue. Contractor agrees that it will not use funds received pursuant to this Contract, either directly or indirectly, as a contribution or compensation for purposes of obtaining funds from another revenue source without prior written approval of the County. M. County shall only reimburse costs incurred through the dates identified in Exhibit "A". Contractor requirements in Sections 1, 2 and 5 of this Contract shall survive the termination of this Contract. The costs to be reimbursed under this Contract do not include Research and Development as defined in Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 200.1, nor do they include indirect costs. 2. AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT REQUIREMENTS A. This Contract may be funded in whole or in part with funds provided by the American Rescue Plan Act - Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (ARPA), Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN): SLT-0628 and Assistance Listing Number(formerly known as a CFDA number): 21.027, and therefore Contractor agrees to comply with any and all Page 148 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 4 of 37 ARPA requirements in addition to any and all applicable County, State, and Federal laws, regulations, policies, and procedures pertaining to the funding of this Contract. The use of the funds must also adhere to official federal guidance issued or to be issued on what constitutes a necessary expenditure. Any funds expended by Contractor or its subcontractor(s) in any manner that does not adhere to the ARPA requirements shall be returned or repaid to the County. Any funds paid to Contractor: i) in excess of the amount to which Contractor is finally determined to be authorized to retain; ii) that are determined to have been misused; or iii) that are determined to be subject to a repayment obligation pursuant to section 603(e) of the Act and have not been repaid, shall constitute a debt to the federal government. Contractor agrees to comply with the requirements of section 603 of the Act, regulations adopted by Treasury pursuant to the Act, and guidance issued by Treasury regarding the foregoing. Contractor shall provide for such compliance in any agreements with subcontractor(s). B. Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to all laws and regulations identified in Section 2 of the Contract. C. In accordance with Title 2 C.F.R. Section 200.322, the non-Federal Contractor should, to the greatest extent practicable under a Federal award, provide a preference for the purchase, acquisition, or use of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States (including but not limited to iron, aluminum, steel, cement, and other manufactured products). The requirements of this section must be included in all subawards including all contracts and purchase orders for work or products under this award. For purposes of this section: "Produced in the United States" means, for iron and steel products, that all manufacturing processes, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States. "Manufactured products" means items and construction materials composed in whole or in part of non-ferrous metals such as aluminum; plastics and polymer-based products such as polyvinyl chloride pipe; aggregates such as concrete; glass, including optical fiber; and lumber. D. In accordance with Title 2 C.F.R. Section 200.471, costs incurred for telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment such as phones, internet, video surveillance, cloud servers are allowable except for the following circumstances: Obligating or expending covered telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment or services (as described in 2 C.F.R. Section 200.216) to: 1) Procure or obtain, extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; 2) Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure; or 3) Obtain the equipment, services, or systems, as described in Title 2 C.F.R. Section 200.216 that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. As described in Public Law 115-232, section 889, covered telecommunications equipment is telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities) and: (i) For the purpose of public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes, video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities); (ii) Telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by such entities or using such equipment; and (iii) Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a covered foreign country. In Page 149 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 5 of 37 implementing the prohibition under Public Law 115-232, section 889, subsection (f), paragraph (1), heads of executive agencies administering loan, grant, or subsidy programs shall prioritize available funding and technical support to assist affected businesses, institutions and organizations as is reasonably necessary for those affected entities to transition from covered communications equipment and services, to procure replacement equipment and services, and to ensure that communications service to users and customers is sustained. E. A non-Federal Contractor that is a state agency or agency of a political subdivision of a state and its contractors must comply with section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at Title 40 C.F.R. Part 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition, where the purchase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or the value of the quantity acquired during the preceding fiscal year exceeded $10,000; procuring solid waste management services in a manner that maximizes energy and resource recovery; and establishing an affirmative procurement program for procurement of recovered materials identified in the EPA guidelines. F. Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. Section 1352) - Contractors that apply or bid for an award exceeding $100,000 must file the required certification. Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by Title 31 U.S.C. Section 1352. Each tier must also disclose any lobbying with non-Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the non-Federal award. G. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 7401-7671q.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Sections 1251-1389), as amended - Contracts and subgrants of amounts in excess of $150,000 must contain a provision that requires the non-Federal award to agree to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 7401-7671q) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. Sections1251-1389). H. Rights to Inventions Made Under a Contract or Agreement. If the Federal award meets the definition of "funding agreement" under Title 37 C.F.R. Section 401.2(a) and the recipient or subrecipient wishes to enter into a contract with a small business firm or nonprofit organization regarding the substitution of parties, assignment or performance of experimental, developmental, or research work under that "funding agreement," the Title 33 U.S.C. Sections 1251-1387 recipient or subrecipient must comply with the requirements of Title 37 C.F.R. Part 401, "Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements," and any implementing regulations issued by the awarding agency. I. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. Sections 3701-3708). Where applicable, all contracts awarded by the non-Federal Contractor in excess of $100,000 that involve the employment of mechanics or laborers must include a provision for compliance with Title 40 U.S.C. Sections 3702 and 3704, as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 5). Under Title 40 U.S.C. Section 3702 of the Act, each Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 6 of 37 contractor must be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than one and a half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week. The requirements of Title 40 U.S.C. Section 3704 are applicable to construction work and provide that no laborer or mechanic must be required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous to health or safety. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. J. Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. Sections 3141-3148). When required by Federal program legislation, all prime construction contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by non- Federal entities must include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. Sections 3141-3148) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 5, "Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction"). In accordance with the statute, contractors must be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, contractors must be required to pay wages not less than once a week. The non-Federal contractor must place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of Labor in each solicitation. The decision to award a contract or subcontract must be conditioned upon the acceptance of the wage determination. The non-Federal Contractor must report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency. The contracts must also include a provision for compliance with the Copeland "Anti- Kickback" Act (18 U.S.C. Section 874 and 40 U.S.C. Section 3145), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 3, "Contractors and Subcontractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States"). The Act provides that each contractor or subrecipient must be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he or she is otherwise entitled. The non-Federal contractor must report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency. i. The Contractor and all Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors are required to pay their employees and workers a wage not less than the minimum wage for the work classification as specified in both the Federal and California wage decisions. See Exhibit "B" for additional information regarding California Prevailing Wage Rate Requirements and the applicable general prevailing wage determinations which are on file with the County and are available to any interested party on request. The higher of the two applicable wage determinations, either California prevailing wage or Davis-Bacon Federal prevailing wage, will be enforced for all applicable work/services under this Contract. K. Contracts for more than the simplified acquisition threshold, which is the inflation adjusted amount determined by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) as authorized by Title 41 U.S.C. Section 1908, must address administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where Contractors violate or breach contract terms, and provide for such sanctions and penalties as appropriate. Page 151 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 7 of 37 L. All contracts in excess of $10,000 must address termination for cause and for convenience by the non-Federal Contractor including the manner by which it will be effected and the basis for settlement. M. Equal Employment Opportunity. Except as otherwise provided under Title 41 C.F.R. Part 60, all contracts that meet the definition of "federally assisted construction contract" in Title 41 C.F.R. Section 60-1.3 must include the equal opportunity clause provided under Title 41 C.F.R. Section 60-1.4(b), in accordance with Executive Order 11246, "Equal Employment Opportunity" (30 FR 12319, 12935, 3 C.F.R. Part, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339), as amended by Executive Order 11375, "Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity," and implementing regulations at 41 C.F.R. part 60, "Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor." The identified clause is below and Contractor shall comply with the clause and all legal requirements and include the equal opportunity clause in each of its nonexempt subcontracts. i. The applicant hereby agrees that it will incorporate or cause to be incorporated into any contract for construction work, or modification thereof, as defined in the regulations of the Secretary of Labor at Title 41 C.F.R. Chapter 60, which is paid for in whole or in part with funds obtained from the Federal Government or borrowed on the credit of the Federal Government pursuant to a grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee, or undertaken pursuant to any Federal program involving such grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee, the following equal opportunity clause: During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows: (1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. (2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. (3) The contractor will not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the compensation of the employee or applicant or another employee or applicant. This provision shall not apply to instances in which an employee who has access to the compensation information of other employees or applicants as a part of such employee's essential job functions discloses the compensation of such other employees or applicants to individuals who do not otherwise have access to such information, unless such disclosure is in response to a formal complaint or charge, in furtherance of an investigation, Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 8 of 37 proceeding, hearing, or action, including an investigation conducted by the employer, or is consistent with the contractor's legal duty to furnish information. (4) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided advising the said labor union or workers' representatives of the contractor's commitments under this section, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. (5) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. (6) The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations, and orders. (7) In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of the said rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts or federally assisted construction contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. (8) The contractor will include the portion of the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (1) and the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (8) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the administering agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, that in the event a contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the administering agency, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. The applicant further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it participates in federally assisted construction work: Provided, that if the applicant so participating is a State or local government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality or subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under the contract. The applicant agrees that it will assist and cooperate actively with the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor in obtaining the compliance of contractors and Page153 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 9 of 37 subcontractors with the equal opportunity clause and the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor, that it will furnish the administering agency and the Secretary of Labor such information as they may require for the supervision of such compliance, and that it will otherwise assist the administering agency in the discharge of the agency's primary responsibility for securing compliance. The applicant further agrees that it will refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a contractor debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, Government contracts and federally assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive Order and will carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by the administering agency or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, Subpart D of the Executive Order. In addition, the applicant agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the administering agency may take any or all of the following actions: Cancel, terminate, or suspend in whole or in part this grant (contract, loan, insurance, guarantee); refrain from extending any further assistance to the applicant under the program with respect to which the failure or refund occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from such applicant; and refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings. N. Data Collection Requirements — Contractor agrees to collect pre-post data per County, and United States Treasury guidelines and timeline, for project tracking and monitoring and various reporting purposes. Data including, but not limited to: Required Project Demographic Distribution Data; Required Performance Indicators and Programmatic Data; Required Expenditure Report Data; and Required Program Evaluation Data. Contractor agrees to track and monitor data in a quantifiable and reportable database - retrievable collective data that needs to be available to County, State or Federal governments upon request. O. Data Submission Requirements - Contractor agrees to furnish data to the County upon request, per County, and United States Treasury guidelines and timeline, for project tracking and monitoring and various reporting purposes. Data including, but not limited to: Required Project Demographic Distribution Data; Required Performance Indicators and Programmatic Data; Required Expenditure Report Data; Required Program Evaluation Data. Contractor agrees to track and monitor data in a quantifiable and reportable database - retrievable collective data that needs to be available at request. P. Project Progress Reporting - Contractor agrees to provide project timeline and progress updates to the County upon request, per County, and United States Treasury guidelines and timeline. Contractor agrees to routine and impromptu program and project evaluation by the County. Q. Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Title 2 C.F.R. Part 200, other than such provisions as Treasury may determine are inapplicable and subject to such exceptions as may be otherwise provided by Treasury. Subpart F — Audit Requirements of the Uniform Guidance, implementing the Single Audit Act, shall apply. R. Universal Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM), Title 2 C.F.R. Part 25. Page 154 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 10 of 37 S. Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information, Title 2 C.F.R. Part 170. T. OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (nonprocurement), title 2 C.F.R. Part 180, including the requirement to include a term or condition in all lower tier covered transactions (contracts and subcontracts described in 2 C.F.R. Part 180, subpart B) that the award is subject to Title 2 C.F.R. Part 180 and Treasury's implementing regulation at Title 31 C.F.R. Part 19. Debarment and Suspension (Executive Orders 12549 and 12689) - A contract award (see 2 CFR Section 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at Title 2 CFR 180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), "Debarment and Suspension." SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. U. Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters, pursuant to which the award terms set forth in Title 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XII to Part 200 is hereby incorporated by reference. V. Government Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace, Title 31 C.F.R. Part 20. W. New Restrictions on Lobbying, Title 31 C.F.R. Part 21. X. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. Sections 4601-4655) and implementing regulations. Y. Applicable Federal environmental laws and regulations. Z. Statutes and regulations prohibiting discrimination include, without limitation, the following: i. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Sections 2000d et seq.) and Treasury's implementing regulations at Title 31 C.F.R. Part 22, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. ii. The Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. Sections 3601 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. iii. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. iv. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sections 6101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under programs, activities, and services provided or made available by state and local governments or instrumentalities or agencies thereto. v. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability under programs, activities, and services provided or made available by state and local governments or instrumentalities or agencies thereto. AA. Contractor understands that making false statements or claims in connection with the ARPA funded activities is a violation of federal law and may result in criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions, including fines, imprisonment, civil damages and penalties, Page 155 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 11 of 37 debarment from participating in federal awards or contracts, and/or any other remedy available by law. BB. Any publications produced with ARPA funds must display the following language: "This project [is being] [was] supported, in whole or in part, by federal award number SLT-0628 awarded to San Bernardino County by the United States Department of Treasury." CC. Pursuant to Executive Order 13043, 62 FR 19217 (Apr. 18, 1997), Contractor is being encouraged to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt policies and programs for their employees when operating company-owned, rented, or personally owned vehicles. DD. Pursuant to Executive Order 13513, 74 FR 51225 (Oct. 6, 2009), Contractor is being encouraged to adopt and enforce policies that ban text messaging while driving and establishing workplace safety policies to decrease accidents caused by distracted drivers. EE. As a recipient of federal financial assistance, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 applies, and Contractor and all subrecipients assures that it: i. Ensures its current and future compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which prohibits exclusion from participation, denial of the benefits of, or subjection to discrimination under programs and activities receiving federal funds, of any person in the United States on the ground of race, color, or national origin (42 U.S.C. Sections 2000d et seq.), as implemented by the Department of the Treasury Title VI regulations at Title 31 CFR Part 22 and other pertinent executive orders such as Executive Order 13166, directives, circulars, policies, memoranda and/or guidance documents. ii. Acknowledges that Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency," seeks to improve access to federally assisted programs and activities for individuals who, because of national origin, have Limited English proficiency (LEP). Contractor understands that denying a person access to its programs, services, and activities, because of LEP is a form of national origin discrimination prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Department of the Treasury's implementing regulations. Contractor shall initiate reasonable steps, or comply with the Department of the Treasury's directives, to ensure LEP persons have meaningful access to its programs, services, and activities. Contractor understands and agrees that meaningful access may entail provide language assistance services, including oral interpretation and written translation where necessary, to ensure effective communication. iii. Agrees to consider the need for language services for LEP persons during development of applicable budgets and when conducting programs, services, and activities. iv. Agrees to maintain a complaint log of any complaints of discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, and limited English proficiency covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and implementing regulations and provide, upon request, a list of all such reviews or proceedings based on the complaint, pending or completed, including outcome. FF. The Contractor must include the following language in every contract or agreement subject to Title VI and its regulations: "The sub-grantee, contractor, successor, transferee, and assignee shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from excluding a program or activity, denying benefits of, or otherwise Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 12 of 37 discriminating against a person on the basis of race, color, or nation origin (42 U.S.C. Section 2000d et seq.), as implemented by the Department of the Treasury's Title VI regulations, 31 CFR Part 22, which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract (or agreement). Title VI also includes protection to persons with "Limited English Proficiency" in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000d et seq., as implemented by the Department of the Treasury's Title VI regulations, 31 CFR Part 22, and herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract or agreement." GG. Contractor shall cooperate in any enforcement or compliance review activities by the County and/or the Department of the Treasury. Contractor shall comply with information requests, on-site compliance reviews, and reporting requirements. HH. Contractor shall maintain records and financial documents sufficient to evidence compliance with section 603(c), regulations adopted by Treasury implementing those sections, and guidance issued by Treasury regarding the foregoing. II. County has the right of access to records (electronic or otherwise) of Contractor in order to conduct audits or other investigations. JJ. Contractor shall maintain records for a period of five (5) years after the completion of the contract or a period of five (5) years after the last reporting date the County is obligated with the Department of the United States Treasury, whichever is later. KK. Contractor must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest in accordance with Title 2 C.F.R. Section 200.112. LL. In accordance with Title 41 U.S.C. Section 4712, subrecipient or Contractor may not discharge, demote, or otherwise discriminate against an employee in reprisal for disclosing to any of the list of persons or entities provided below, information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of gross mismanagement of a federal contract or grant, a gross waste of federal funds, an abuse of authority relating to a federal contract or grant, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a federal contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract) or grant. The list of persons and entities referenced in the paragraph above includes the following: (i) A member of Congress or a representative of a committee of Congress; (ii) An Inspector General; (iii) The Government Accountability Office; (iv) A Treasury employee responsible for contract or grant oversight or management; (v) An authorized official of the Department of Justice or other law enforcement agency; (vi) A court or grand jury; or (vii) A management official or other employee of recipient, subrecipient, contractor, or subcontractor who has the responsibility to investigate, discover, or address misconduct. Subrecipient or Contractor shall inform its employees in writing of the rights and remedies provided under this section, in the predominant native language of the workforce. MM. County and Contractor acknowledge that if additional federal guidance is issued, an amendment to this Contract may be necessary. In the event any of the terms in this Section 2 conflict with any other terms in the Contract, the terms in this Section 2 shall control. 3. GENERAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 13 of 37 A. Recitals The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. B. Contract Amendments Contractor agrees any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of the Contract, shall be valid only when reduced to writing, executed and attached to the original Contract and approved by the person(s) authorized to do so on behalf of Contractor and County. C. Contract Assignability Without the prior written consent of the County, the Contract is not assignable by Contractor either in whole or in part. D. Contract Exclusivity This is not an exclusive Contract. The County reserves the right to enter into a contract with other contractors for the same or similar services. The County does not guarantee or represent that the Contractor will be permitted to perform any minimum amount of work, or receive compensation other than on a per order basis, under the terms of this Contract. E. Attorney's Fees and Costs If any legal action is instituted to enforce any party's rights hereunder, each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees, regardless of who is the prevailing party. This paragraph shall not apply to those costs and attorney fees directly arising from a third-party legal action against a party hereto and payable under Indemnification and Insurance Requirements. F. Background Checks for Contractor Personnel Contractor shall ensure that its personnel (a) are authorized to work in the jurisdiction in which they are assigned to perform services; (d) do not use legal or illegal substances in any manner which will impact their ability to provide services; and (c) are not otherwise disqualified from performing the services under applicable law. If requested by the County and not in violation of applicable law, Contractor shall conduct a background check, at Contractor's sole expense, on all its personnel providing services. If requested by the County, Contractor shall provide the results of the background check of each individual to the County. Such background check shall be in the form generally used by Contractor in its initial hiring of employees or contracting for contractors or, as applicable, during the employment-screening process but must, at a minimum, have been performed within the preceding 12-month period. Contractor personnel who do not meet the County's hiring criteria, in County's sole discretion, shall not be assigned to work on County property or services, and County shall have the right, at its sole option, to refuse access to any Contract personnel to any County facility. G. Change of Address Contractor shall notify the County in writing, of any change in mailing address within ten (10) business days of the change. H. Choice of Law This Contract shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of California. I. Confidentiality Page 158 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 14 of 37 Contractor shall protect from unauthorized use or disclosure names and other identifying information concerning persons receiving services pursuant to this Contract, except for statistical information not identifying any participant. Contractor shall not use or disclose any identifying information for any other purpose other than carrying out the Contractor's obligations under this Contract, except as may be otherwise required by law. This provision will remain in force even after the termination of the Contract. J. Primary Point of Contact Contractor will designate an individual to serve as the primary point of contact for the Contract. Contractor or designee must respond to County inquiries within two (2) business days. Contractor shall not change the primary contact without written acknowledgement to the County. Contractor will also designate a back-up point of contact in the event the primary contact is not available. K. Rule of Construction The parties agree that this Contract and all agreements or documents incorporated herein shall not be subject to the rule of construction that a written agreement is construed against the party preparing or drafting that agreement. L. County Representative The Chief Executive Officer or his/her designee shall represent the County in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered under this Contract, including termination and assignment of this Contract, and shall be the final authority in all matters pertaining to the services/scope of Work by Contractor. If this contract was initially approved by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, then the Board of Supervisors must approve all amendments to this Contract. M. Damage to County Property Contractor shall repair, or cause to be repaired, at its own cost, all damages to County vehicles, facilities, buildings or grounds caused by the willful or negligent acts of Contractor or its employees or agents. Such repairs shall be made immediately after Contractor becomes aware of such damage, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after the occurrence. If the Contractor fails to make timely repairs, the County may make any necessary repairs. The Contractor, as determined by the County, shall repay all costs incurred by the County for such repairs, by cash payment upon demand, or County may deduct such costs from any amounts due to the Contractor from the County, as determined at the County's sole discretion. N. Debarment and Suspension Contractor certifies that neither it nor its principals or subcontracts is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency. (See the following United States General Services Administration's System for Award Management website https://www.sam.qov). Contractor further certifies that if it or any of its subcontractors are business entities that must be registered with the California Secretary of State, they are registered and in good standing with the Secretary of State. An subcontracts funded by this Contract shall be with vendors that meet this certification and registration requirement. O. Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace In recognition of individual rights to work in a safe, healthful and productive work place, as Page 159 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 15 of 37 a material condition of this Contract, the Contractor agrees that the Contractor and the Contractor's employees, while performing service for the County, on County property, or while using County equipment: i. Shall not be in any way impaired because of being under the influence of alcohol or an illegal or controlled substance. ii. Shall not possess an open container of alcohol or consume alcohol or possess or be under the influence of an illegal or controlled substance. iii. Shall not sell, offer, or provide alcohol or an illegal or controlled substance to another person, except where Contractor or Contractor's employee who, as part of the performance of normal job duties and responsibilities, prescribes or administers medically prescribed drugs. The Contractor shall inform all employees that are performing service for the County on County property, or using County equipment, of the County's objective of a safe, healthful and productive work place and the prohibition of drug or alcohol use or impairment from same while performing such service for the County. The County may terminate for default or breach of this Contract and any other Contract the Contractor has with the County, if the Contractor or Contractor's employees are determined by the County not to be in compliance with above. P. Duration of Terms This Contract, and all of its terms and conditions, shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the respective parties, provided no such assignment is in violation of the provisions of this Contract. Q. Discrimination During the term of the Contract, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, or military and veteran status. Contractor shall comply with Executive Orders 11246, 11375, 11625, 12138, 12432, 12250, 13672, Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and other applicable Federal, State and County laws and regulations and policies relating to equal employment and contracting opportunities, including laws and regulations hereafter enacted. R. Improper Influence Contractor shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that no County officer or employee, whose position in the County enables him/her to influence any award of the Contract or any competing offer, shall have any direct or indirect financial interest resulting from the award of the Contract or shall have any relationship to the Contractor or officer or employee of the Contractor. S. Improper Consideration Contractor shall not offer (either directly or through an intermediary) any improper consideration such as, but not limited to cash, discounts, service, the provision of travel or entertainment, or any items of value to any officer, employee or agent of the County in an attempt to secure favorable treatment regarding this Contract. Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 16 of 37 The County, by written notice, may immediately terminate this Contract if it determines that any improper consideration as described in the preceding paragraph was offered to any officer, employee or agent of the County with respect to the proposal and award process. This prohibition shall apply to any amendment, extension or evaluation process once a contract has been awarded. Contractor shall immediately report any attempt by a County officer, employee or agent to solicit (either directly or through an intermediary) improper consideration from Contractor. The report shall be made to the supervisor or manager charged with supervision of the employee or the County Administrative Office. In the event of a termination under this provision, the County is entitled to pursue any available legal remedies. T. Informal Dispute Resolution In the event the County determines that service is unsatisfactory, or in the event of any other dispute, claim, question or disagreement arising from or relating to this Contract or breach thereof, the parties hereto shall use their best efforts to settle the dispute, claim, question or disagreement. To this effect, they shall consult and negotiate with each other in good faith and, recognizing their mutual interests, attempt to reach a just and equitable solution satisfactory to both parties. U. Legality and Severability The parties' actions under the Contract shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, court orders and governmental agency orders. The provisions of this Contract are specifically made severable. If a provision of the Contract is terminated or held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall remain in full effect. V. Licenses, Permits and/or Certifications Contractor shall ensure that it has all necessary licenses, permits and/or certifications required by the laws of Federal, State, County, and municipal laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. The Contractor shall maintain these licenses, permits and/or certifications in effect for the duration of this Contract. Contractor will notify County immediately of loss or suspension of any such licenses, permits and/or certifications. Failure to maintain a required license, permit and/or certification may result in immediate termination of this Contract. W. Material Misstatement/Misrepresentation If during the course of the administration of this Contract, the County determines that Contractor has made a material misstatement or misrepresentation or that materially inaccurate information has been provided to the County, this Contract may be immediately terminated. If this Contract is terminated according to this provision, the County is entitled to pursue any available legal remedies. X. Mutual Covenants The parties to this Contract mutually covenant to perform all of their obligations hereunder, to exercise all discretion and rights granted hereunder, and to give all consents in a reasonable manner consistent with the standards of "good faith" and "fair dealing". Y. Nondisclosure Contractor shall hold as confidential and use reasonable care to prevent unauthorized access by, storage, disclosure, publication, dissemination to and/or use by third parties of, confidential Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 17 of 37 information that is either: (1) provided by the County to Contractor or an agent of Contractor or otherwise made available to Contractor or Contractor's agent in connection with this Contract; or, (2) acquired, obtained, or learned by Contractor or an agent of Contractor in the performance of this Contract. For purposes of this provision, confidential information means any data, files, software, information or materials in oral, electronic, tangible or intangible form and however stored, compiled or memorialize and includes, but is not limited to, technology infrastructure, architecture, financial data, trade secrets, equipment specifications, user lists, passwords, research data, and technology data. Z. Notice of Delays Except as otherwise provided herein, when either party has knowledge that any actual or potential situation is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of this contract, that party shall, within twenty-four (24) hours, give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to the other party. AA. Ownership of Documents All documents, data, products, graphics, computer programs and reports prepared by Contractor pursuant to the Contract shall be considered property of the County upon payment for services (and products, if applicable). All such items shall be delivered to County at the completion of work under the Contract. Unless otherwise directed by County, Contractor may retain copies of such items. BB. Air, Water Pollution Control, Safety and Health Contractor shall comply with all air pollution control, water pollution, safety and health ordinances and statutes, which apply to the work performed pursuant to this Contract. CC. Records Contractor shall maintain all records and books pertaining to the delivery of services under this Contract and demonstrate accountability for contract performance. All records shall be complete and current and comply with all Contract requirements. Failure to maintain acceptable records shall be considered grounds for withholding of payments for invoices submitted and/or termination of the Contract. All records relating to the Contractor's personnel, consultants, subcontractors, services/scope of Work and expenses pertaining to this Contract shall be kept in a generally acceptable accounting format. Records should include primary source documents. Fiscal records shall be kept in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and must account for all funds, tangible assets, revenue and expenditures. Fiscal records must comply with the appropriate Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars, which state the administrative requirements, cost principles and other standards for accountancy. DD. Relationship of the Parties Nothing contained in this Contract shall be construed as creating a joint venture, partnership, or employment arrangement between the Parties hereto, nor shall either Party have the right, power or authority to create an obligation or duty, expressed or implied, on behalf of the other Party hereto. EE. Release of Information No news releases, advertisements, public announcements or photographs arising out of the Contract or Contractor's relationship with County may be made or used without prior written approval of the County. Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 18 of 37 FF. Representation of the County In the performance of this Contract, Contractor, its agents and employees, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, or agents of the San Bernardino County. GG. Strict Performance Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Contract by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Contract thereafter. HH. Subcontracting Contractor shall obtain County's written consent, which County may withhold in its sole discretion, before entering into Contracts with or otherwise engaging any subcontractors who may supply any part of the services to County. At County's request, Contractor shall provide information regarding the subcontractor's qualifications and a listing of a subcontractor's key personnel including, if requested by the County, resumes of proposed subcontractor personnel. Contractor shall remain directly responsible to County for its subcontractors and shall indemnify County for the actions or omissions of its subcontractors under the terms and conditions specified in Section 5. All approved subcontractors shall be subject to the provisions of this Contract applicable to Contractor Personnel. For any subcontractor, Contractor shall: i. Be responsible for subcontractor compliance with the Contract and the subcontract terms and conditions; and ii. Ensure that the subcontractor follows County's reporting formats and procedures as specified by County. iii. Include in the subcontractor's subcontract substantially similar terms as are provided in this Contract. Upon expiration or termination of this Contract for any reason, County will have the right to enter into direct Contracts with any of the Subcontractors. Contractor agrees that its arrangements with Subcontractors will not prohibit or restrict such Subcontractors from entering into direct Contracts with County. II. Subpoena In the event that a subpoena or other legal process commenced by a third party in any way concerning the goods or services provided under this Contract is served upon Contractor or County, such party agrees to notify the other party in the most expeditious fashion possible following receipt of such subpoena or other legal process. Contractor and County further agree to cooperate with the other party in any lawful effort by such other party to contest the legal validity of such subpoena or other legal process commenced by a third party as may be reasonably required and at the expense of the party to whom the legal process is directed, except as otherwise provided herein in connection with defense obligations by Contractor for County. JJ. Termination for Convenience The County reserves the right to terminate the Contract, for any reason, with a thirty (30) day written notice of termination. The County's Chief Executive Officer is authorized to terminate this Contract. Such termination may include all or part of the services described Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 19 of 37 herein. Upon such termination, payment will be made to the Contractor for services rendered and expenses reasonably incurred prior to the effective date of termination. Upon receipt of termination notice Contractor shall promptly discontinue services unless the notice directs otherwise. Contractor shall deliver promptly to County and transfer title (if necessary) all completed work, and work in progress, including drafts, documents, plans, forms, data, products, graphics, computer programs and reports. KK. Time of the Essence Time is of the essence in performance of this Contract and of each of its provisions. LL. Venue The parties acknowledge and agree that this Contract was entered into and intended to be performed in San Bernardino County, California. The parties agree that the venue of any action or claim brought by any party to this Contract will be the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District. Each party hereby waives any law or rule of the court, which would allow them to request or demand a change of venue. If any action or claim concerning this Contract is brought by any third party and filed in another venue, the parties hereto agree to use their best efforts to obtain a change of venue to the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District. MM. Conflict of Interest Contractor shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that no conflict of interest exists between its officers, employees, or subcontractors and the County. Contractor shall make a reasonable effort to prevent employees, Contractor, or members of governing bodies from using their positions for purposes that are, or give the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others such as those with whom they have family business, or other ties. Officers, employees, and agents of cities, counties, districts, and other local agencies are subject to applicable conflict of interest codes and state law. In the event the County determines a conflict of interest situation exists, any increase in costs, associated with the conflict of interest situation, may be disallowed by the County and such conflict may constitute grounds for termination of the Contract. This provision shall not be construed to prohibit employment of persons with whom Contractor's officers, employees, or agents have family, business, or other ties so long as the employment of such persons does not result in increased costs over those associated with the employment of any other equally qualified applicant. NN. Copyright County shall have a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to publish, disclose, copy, translate, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, now and hereafter, all reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems, and any other materials or properties developed under this Contract including those covered by copyright, and reserves the right to authorize others to use or reproduce such material. All such materials developed under the terms of this Contract shall acknowledge the San Bernardino County as the funding agency and Contractor as the creator of the publication. No such materials, or properties produced in whole or in part under this Contract shall be subject to private use, copyright or patent right by Contractor in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of County. Copies of all educational and training materials, curricula, audio/visual aids, printer material, and periodicals, assembled pursuant to this Contract must be filed with the County prior to publication. 00. Iran Contracting Act Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 20 of 37 IRAN CONTRACTING ACT OF 2010, Public Contract Code Sections 2200 et seq. (Applicable for all Contracts of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more). In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 2204(a), the Contractor certifies that at the time the Contract is signed, the Contractor signing the Contract is not identified on a list created pursuant to subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code Section 2203 as a person (as defined in Public Contract Code Section 2202(e)) engaging in investment activities in Iran described in subdivision (a) of Public Contract Code Section 2202.5, or as a person described in subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code Section 2202.5, as applicable. Contractors are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the Contractor to civil penalties, termination of existing contract, and ineligibility to bid on a contract for a period of three (3) years in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 2205. PP. California Consumer Privacy Act To the extent applicable, if Contractor is a business that collects the personal information of a consumer(s) in performing services pursuant to this Contract, Contractor must comply with the provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). (Cal. Civil Code Sections 1798.100, et seq.). For purposes of this provision, "business," "consumer," and "personal information" shall have the same meanings as set forth at Civil Code Section 1798.140. Contractor must contact the County immediately upon receipt of any request by a consumer submitted pursuant to the CCPA that requires any action on the part of the County, including but not limited to, providing a list of disclosures or deleting personal information. Contractor must not sell, market or otherwise disclose personal information of a consumer provided by the County unless specifically authorized pursuant to terms of this Contract. Contractor must immediately provide to the County any notice provided by a consumer to Contractor pursuant to Civil Code Section 1798.150(b) alleging a violation of the CCPA, that involves personal information received or maintained pursuant to this Contract. Contractor must immediately notify the County if it receives a notice of violation from the California Attorney General pursuant to Civil Code Section 1798.155(b). QQ. Prevailing Wage Laws By its execution of this Contract, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq. as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. Section 1720 of the California Labor Code states in part: "For purposes of this paragraph, `construction' includes work performed during the design, site assessment, feasibility study, and other preconstruction phases of construction including, but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work..." If the services/scope of Work are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Contractor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Contractor's principal place of business and at the project site. Contractor will also adhere to any other applicable requirements, including but not limited to, those regarding the employment of apprentices, travel and subsistence pay, retention and inspection of payroll records, workers compensation and forfeiture of penalties prescribed in the Labor Code for violations. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the County, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with Prevailing Wage Laws. Page 165 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 21 of 37 See Exhibit "B", which is attached and incorporated by reference, for additional information regarding Prevailing Wage Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable terms and conditions in Exhibit "B". The applicable general prevailing wage determinations are on file with the County and are available to any interested party on request. Contractor shall post a copy of the applicable prevailing wage determinations at the job site. 4. TERM OF CONTRACT This Contract is effective as of the date last signed by authorized representatives of any party (Effective Date), requires all incurred obligations by December 31, 2024, and expires on December 31, 2026, but may be terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of this Contract. 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS A. Indemnification The Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably approved by County) and hold harmless the County and its authorized officers, employees, agents and volunteers from any and all claims, actions, losses, damages and/or liability arising out of this Contract from any cause whatsoever, including the acts, errors or omissions of any person and for any costs or expenses incurred by the County on account of any claim except where such indemnification is prohibited by law. This indemnification provision shall apply regardless of the existence or degree of fault of indemnities. The Contractor indemnification obligation applies to the County's "active" as well as "passive" negligence but does not apply to the County's "sole negligence" or "willful misconduct" within the meaning of Civil Code Section 2782. B. Insurance i. Contractor and County are authorized self-insured public entities for purposes of Professional Liability, General Liability, Automobile Liability, Worker's Compensation and Property Damage and warrant that through their respective programs of self- insurance, they have adequate coverage or resources to protect against liabilities arising out of the performance of the terms, conditions or obligations of this Contract. ii. Insurance Review — Insurance requirements are subject to periodic review by the County. The Director of Risk Management or designee is authorized, but not required, to reduce, waive or suspend any insurance requirements whenever Risk Management determines that any of the required insurance is not available, is unreasonably priced, or is not needed to protect the interests of the County. In addition, if the Department of Risk Management determines that heretofore unreasonably priced or unavailable types of insurance coverage or coverage limits become reasonably priced or available, the Director of Risk Management or designee is authorized, but not required, to change the above insurance requirements to require additional types of insurance coverage or higher coverage limits, provided that any such change is reasonable in light of past claims against the County, inflation, or any other item reasonably related to the County's risk. Any change requiring additional types of insurance coverage or higher coverage limits must be made by amendment to this Contract. Contractor agrees to execute any such amendment within thirty (30) days of receipt. Any failure, actual or alleged, on the part of the County to monitor or enforce compliance with any of the insurance and indemnification requirements will not be deemed as a waiver of any rights on the part of the County. Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 22 of 37 6. RIGHT TO MONITOR AND AUDIT A. The County, State and Federal government shall have absolute right to review and audit all records, books, papers, documents, corporate minutes, and other pertinent items as requested, and shall have absolute right to monitor the performance of Contractor in the delivery of services provided under this Contract. Contractor shall give full cooperation, in any auditing or monitoring conducted. Contractor shall cooperate with the County in the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of this Contract and comply with any and all reporting requirements established by the County. B. All records pertaining to services delivered and all fiscal, statistical and management books and records shall be available for examination and audit by County representatives for a period of three years after final payment under this Contract or until all pending County, State and Federal audits are completed, whichever is later. 7. CORRECTION OF PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES A. Failure by Contractor to comply with any of the provisions, covenants, requirements or conditions of this Contract shall be a material breach of this Contract. B. In the event of a non-cured breach, County may, at its sole discretion and in addition to any other remedies available at law, in equity, or otherwise specified in this Contract: i. Afford Contractor thereafter a time period within which to cure the breach, which period shall be established at the sole discretion of County; and/or ii. Discontinue reimbursement to Contractor for and during the period in which Contractor is in breach, which reimbursement shall not be entitled to later recovery; and/or iii. Withhold funds pending duration of the breach; and/or iv. Offset against any monies billed by Contractor but yet unpaid by County those monies disallowed pursuant to Item "B" of this paragraph; and/or v. Terminate this Contract immediately and be relieved of the payment of any consideration to Contractor. In the event of such termination, the County may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by the County. The cost to the County shall be deducted from any sum due to the Contractor under this Contract and the balance, if any, shall be paid by the Contractor upon demand. 8. NOTICES All written notices provided for in this Contract or which either party desires to give to the other shall be deemed fully given, when made in writing and either served personally, or by facsimile, or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the other party as follows: San Bernardino County City of Rancho Cucamonga County Administrative Office — 4th Floor 10500 Civic Center Drive 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801 San Bernardino, CA 92415 Notice shall be deemed communicated two (2) County working days from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this paragraph. 9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Contract, including all Exhibits and other attachments, which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and other documents incorporated herein, represents the final, Page 167 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 23 of 37 complete and exclusive agreement between the parties hereto. Any prior agreement, promises, negotiations or representations relating to the subject matter of this Contract not expressly set forth herein are of no force or effect. This Contract is executed without reliance upon any promise, warranty or representation by any party or any representative of any party other than those expressly contained herein. Each party has carefully read this Contract and signs the same of its own free will. 10.CONTRACT EXECUTION This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Contract. The parties shall be entitled to sign and transmit an electronic signature of this Contract (whether by facsimile, PDF or other email transmission), which signature shall be binding on the party whose name is contained therein. Each party providing an electronic signature agrees to promptly execute and deliver to the other party an original signed Contract upon request. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the San Bernardino County and City of Rancho Cucamonga have each caused this Contract to be subscribed by its respective duly authorized officers, on its behalf. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (Print or type name of corporation,company,contractor, etc.) ► By Leonard X. Hernandez, Chief Executive Officer (Authorized signature-sign in blue ink) Dated: Name (Print or type name of person signing contract) Title (Print or Type) Dated: Address FOR COUNTY USE ONLY Approved as to Legal Form Reviewed for Contract Compliance Reviewed/Approved by Department County Counsel Date Date Date Page 168 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 24 of 37 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF EXPENDITURES [SEPARATELY ATTACHED] Page 169 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 25 of 37 EXHIBIT B PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS A. All or a portion of the Scope of Work in the Contract requires the payment of prevailing wages and compliance with the following requirements: 1. Determination of Prevailing Rates: Pursuant to Labor Code sections 1770, et seq., the County has obtained from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to the California Labor Code, the general prevailing rates of per diem wages and the prevailing rates for holiday and overtime work in the locality in which the Scope of Work is to be performed. Copies of said rates are on file with the County, will be made available for inspection during regular business hours, may be included elsewhere in the specifications for the Scope of Work, and are also available online at www.dir.ca.gov. The wage rate for any classification not listed, but which may be required to execute the Scope of Work, shall be commensurate and in accord with specified rates for similar or comparable classifications for those performing similar or comparable duties. In accordance with Labor Code section 1773.2, the Contractor shall post, at appropriate and conspicuous locations on the job site, a schedule showing all applicable prevailing wage rates and shall comply with the requirements of Labor Code sections 1773, et seq. 2. Payment of Prevailing Rates Each worker of the Contractor, or any subcontractor, engaged in the Scope of Work, shall be paid not less than the general prevailing wage rate, regardless of any contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the Contractor or any subcontractor, and such worker. 3. Prevailing Rate Penalty The Contractor shall, as a penalty, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200.00) to the County for each calendar day or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the Director of the DIR for such work or craft in which such worker is employed by the Contractor or by any subcontractor in connection with the Scope of Work. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1775, the difference between such prevailing wage rates and the amount paid to each worker for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for which each worker was paid less than the prevailing wage rate, shall be paid to each worker by the Contractor. 4. Ineligible Contractors: Pursuant to the provisions of Labor Code section 1777.1, the Labor Commissioner publishes and distributes a list of contractors ineligible to perform work as a contractor or subcontractor on a public works project. This list of debarred contractors is available from the DIR website at http://www.dir.ca.gov/Public-Works/PublicWorks.html. Any contract entered into between a contractor and a debarred subcontractor is void as a matter of law. A debarred subcontractor may not receive any public money for performing work as a subcontractor on a public works contract, and any public money that may have been paid to a debarred subcontractor by a contractor on the project shall be returned to the County. The Contractor shall be responsible for the payment of wages to workers as a debarred subcontractor who has been allowed to work on the Scope of Work. Page 170 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 26 of 37 5. Payroll Records: a. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1776, the Contractor and each subcontractor, shall keep accurate certified payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker or other employee employed by them in connection with the Scope of Work. The payroll records enumerated herein shall be verified by a written declaration made under penalty of perjury that the information contained in the payroll record is true and correct and that the Contractor or subcontractor has complied with the requirements of the California Labor Code sections 1771, 1811, and 1815 for any Scope of Work performed by his or her employees. The payroll records shall be available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of the Contractor on the following basis: i. A certified copy of an employee's payroll record shall be made available for inspection or furnished to such employee or his/her authorized representative on request; ii. A certified copy of all payroll records shall be made available for inspection or furnished upon request to the County, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement of the DIR; iii. A certified copy of payroll records shall be made available upon request to the public for inspection or copies thereof made; provided, however, that a request by the public shall be made through either the County or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. If the requested payroll records have not been previously provided to the County or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, the requesting party shall, prior to being provided the records, reimburse the cost of preparation by the Contractor, subcontractor and the entity through which the request was made; the public shall not be given access to such records at the principal office of the Contractor; iv. The Contractor shall file a certified copy of the payroll records with the entity that requested such records within ten (10) days after receipt of a written request; and v. Copies provided to the public, by the County or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement shall be marked or obliterated in such a manner as to prevent disclosure of an individual's name, address and social security number. The name and address of the Contractor or any subcontractor, performing a part of the Scope of Work shall not be marked or obliterated. The Contractor shall inform the County of the location of payroll records, including the street address, city and county and shall, within five (5) working days, provide a notice of a change of location and address. b. The Contractor shall have ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice specifying in what respects the Contractor must comply with the above requirements. In the event Contractor does not comply with the requirements of this section within the ten (10) day period, the Contractor shall, as a penalty to the County, forfeit one-hundred dollars ($100.00) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, until strict compliance is effectuated. Upon the request of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, such penalty shall be withheld from any portion of the payments then due or to become due to the Contractor. 6. Limits on Hours of Work: Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1810, eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work. Pursuant to California Labor Code section 1811, the time of service of any worker employed at any time by the Contractor or by a subcontractor, upon the Scope of Work or upon any part of the Scope of Work, is limited and restricted to eight (8) hours during any one calendar day and forty (40) hours during any one calendar week, except as Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 27 of 37 provided for under Labor Code section 1815. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, work performed by employees of Contractor or any subcontractor, in excess of eight (8) hours per day and forty (40) hours during any one week, shall be permitted upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day at not less than one and one-half (1%) times the basic rate of pay. 7. Penalty for Excess Hours: The Contractor shall pay to the County a penalty of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each worker employed on the Scope of Work by the Contractor or any subcontractor, for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week, in violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless compensation to the worker so employed by the Contractor is not less than one and one-half (1%) times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day. 8. Senate Bill 854 (Chapter 28, Statutes of 2014) and Senate Bill 96 (Chapter 28, Statutes of 2017) Requirements: a. Contractor shall comply with Senate Bill 854 and Senate Bill 96. The requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: i. No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5, with limited exceptions from this requirements for bid purposes only as allowed under Labor Code section 1771.1(a). ii. No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work or perform work on a public works project unless registered with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. iii. This project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. iv. As required by the DIR, Contractor is required to post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation, regarding compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. v. Contractors and all subcontractors must submit certified payroll records online to the Labor Commissioner for all public works projects. 1) The certified payroll must be submitted at least monthly to the Labor Commissioner. 2) The County reserves the right to require Contractor and all subcontractors to submit certified payroll records more frequently than monthly to the Labor Commissioner. 3) The certified payroll records must be in a format prescribed by the Labor Commissioner. vi. Registration with the DIR and the submission of certified payroll records to the Labor Commissioner are not required if the public works project is $25,000 or less when the project is for construction, alteration, demolition, installation or repair work, or if the public works project is $15,000 or less when the project is for maintenance work. b. Labor Code section 1725.5 states the following: "A contractor shall be registered pursuant to this section to be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any public work contract that is subject to the requirements of this chapter. For the purposes of this section, "contractor" includes a subcontractor as defined by Section 1722.1. Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 28 of 37 (a) To qualify for registration under this section, a contractor shall do all of the following: (1) (A) Register with the Department of Industrial Relations in the manner prescribed by the department and pay an initial nonrefundable application fee of four hundred dollars ($400) to qualify for registration under this section and an annual renewal fee on or before July 1 of each year thereafter. The annual renewal fee shall be in a uniform amount set by the Director of Industrial Relations, and the initial registration and renewal fees may be adjusted no more than annually by the director to support the costs specified in Section 1771.3. (B) Beginning June 1, 2019, a contractor may register or renew according to this subdivision in annual increments up to three years from the date of registration. Contractors who wish to do so will be required to prepay the applicable nonrefundable application or renewal fees to qualify for the number of years for which they wish to preregister. (2) Provide evidence, disclosures, or releases as are necessary to establish all of the following: (A) Workers' compensation coverage that meets the requirements of Division 4 (commencing with Section 3200) and includes sufficient coverage for any worker whom the contractor employs to perform work that is subject to prevailing wage requirements other than a contractor who is separately registered under this section. Coverage may be evidenced by a current and valid certificate of workers' compensation insurance or certification of self-insurance required under Section 7125 of the Business and Professions Code. (B) If applicable, the contractor is licensed in accordance with Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of the Business and Professions Code. (C) The contractor does not have any delinquent liability to an employee or the state for any assessment of back wages or related damages, interest, fines, or penalties pursuant to any final judgment, order, or determination by a court or any federal, state, or local administrative agency, including a confirmed arbitration award. However, for purposes of this paragraph, the contractor shall not be disqualified for any judgment, order, or determination that is under appeal, provided that the contractor has secured the payment of any amount eventually found due through a bond or other appropriate means. (D) The contractor is not currently debarred under Section 1777.1 or under any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. (E) The contractor has not bid on a public works contract, been listed in a bid proposal, or engaged in the performance of a contract for public works without being lawfully registered in accordance with this section, within the preceding 12 months or since the effective date of the requirements set forth in subdivision (e), whichever is earlier. If a contractor is found to be in violation of the requirements of this paragraph, the period of disqualification shall be waived if both of the following are true: (i) The contractor has not previously been found to be in violation of the requirements of this paragraph within the preceding 12 months. Page173 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 29 of 37 (ii) The contractor pays an additional nonrefundable penalty registration fee of two thousand dollars ($2,000). (b) Fees received pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the State Public Works Enforcement Fund established by Section 1771 .3 and shall be used only for the purposes specified in that section. (c) A contractor who fails to pay the renewal fee required under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) on or before the expiration of any prior period of registration shall be prohibited from bidding on or engaging in the performance of any contract for public work until once again registered pursuant to this section. If the failure to pay the renewal fee was inadvertent, the contractor may renew its registration retroactively by paying an additional nonrefundable penalty renewal fee equal to the amount of the renewal fee within 90 days of the due date of the renewal fee. (d) If, after a body awarding a contract accepts the contractor's bid or awards the contract, the work covered by the bid or contract is determined to be a public work to which Section 1771 applies, either as the result of a determination by the director pursuant to Section 1773.5 or a court decision, the requirements of this section shall not apply, subject to the following requirements: (1) The body that awarded the contract failed, in the bid specification or in the contract documents, to identify as a public work that portion of the work that the determination or decision subsequently classifies as a public work. (2) Within 20 days following service of notice on the awarding body of a determination by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to Section 1773.5 or a decision by a court that the contract was for public work as defined in this chapter, the contractor and any subcontractors are registered under this section or are replaced by a contractor or subcontractors who are registered under this section. (3) The requirements of this section shall apply prospectively only to any subsequent bid, bid proposal, contract, or work performed after the awarding body is served with notice of the determination or decision referred to in paragraph (2). (e) The requirements of this section shall apply to any bid proposal submitted on or after March 1 , 2015, to any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, executed on or after April 1, 2015, and to any work performed under a contract for public work on or after January 1, 2018, regardless of when the contract for public work was executed. (f) This section does not apply to work performed on a public works project of twenty- five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less when the project is for construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work or to work performed on a public works project of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) or less when the project is for maintenance work." c. Labor Code section 1771.1 states the following: "(a) A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Page 174 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 30 of 37 Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded. (b) Notice of the requirement described in subdivision (a) shall be included in all bid invitations and public works contracts, and a bid shall not be accepted nor any contract or subcontract entered into without proof of the contractor or subcontractor's current registration to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. (c) An inadvertent error in listing a subcontractor who is not registered pursuant to Section 1725.5 in a bid proposal shall not be grounds for filing a bid protest or grounds for considering the bid nonresponsive, provided that any of the following apply: (1) The subcontractor is registered prior to the bid opening. (2) Within 24 hours after the bid opening, the subcontractor is registered and has paid the penalty registration fee specified in subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1725.5. (3) The subcontractor is replaced by another registered subcontractor pursuant to Section 4107 of the Public Contract Code. (d) Failure by a subcontractor to be registered to perform public work as required by subdivision (a) shall be grounds under Section 4107 of the Public Contract Code for the contractor, with the consent of the awarding authority, to substitute a subcontractor who is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 in place of the unregistered subcontractor. (e) The department shall maintain on its Internet Web site a list of contractors who are currently registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. (f) A contract entered into with any contractor or subcontractor in violation of subdivision (a) shall be subject to cancellation, provided that a contract for public work shall not be unlawful, void, or voidable solely due to the failure of the awarding body, contractor, or any subcontractor to comply with the requirements of Section 1725.5 or this section. (g) If the Labor Commissioner or his or her designee determines that a contractor or subcontractor engaged in the performance of any public work contract without having been registered in accordance with this section, the contractor or subcontractor shall forfeit, as a civil penalty to the state, one hundred dollars ($100) for each day of work performed in violation of the registration requirement, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) in addition to any penalty registration fee assessed pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1725.5. (h)(1) In addition to, or in lieu of, any other penalty or sanction authorized pursuant to this chapter, a higher tiered public works contractor or subcontractor who is found to have entered into a subcontract with an unregistered lower tier subcontractor to perform any public work in violation of the requirements of Section 1725.5 or this section shall be subject to forfeiture, as a civil penalty to the state, of one hundred dollars ($100) for each day the unregistered lower tier subcontractor performs work in violation of the Page175 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 31 of 37 registration requirement, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (2) The Labor Commissioner shall use the same standards specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 1775 when determining the severity of the violation and what penalty to assess, and may waive the penalty for a first time violation that was unintentional and did not hinder the Labor Commissioner's ability to monitor and enforce compliance with the requirements of this chapter. (3) A higher tiered public works contractor or subcontractor shall not be liable for penalties assessed pursuant to paragraph (1) if the lower tier subcontractor's performance is in violation of the requirements of Section 1725.5 due to the revocation of a previously approved registration. (4) A subcontractor shall not be liable for any penalties assessed against a higher tiered public works contractor or subcontractor pursuant to paragraph (1). A higher tiered public works contractor or subcontractor may not require a lower tiered subcontractor to indemnity or otherwise be liable for any penalties pursuant to paragraph (1). (i) The Labor Commissioner or his or her designee shall issue a civil wage and penalty assessment, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1741, upon determination of penalties pursuant to subdivision (g) and subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (h). Review of a civil wage and penalty assessment issued under this subdivision may be requested in accordance with the provisions of Section 1742. The regulations of the Director of Industrial Relations, which govern proceedings for review of civil wage and penalty assessments and the withholding of contract payments under Article 1 (commencing with Section 1720) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 1770), shall apply. (j)(1) Where a contractor or subcontractor engages in the performance of any public work contract without having been registered in violation of the requirements of Section 1725.5 or this section, the Labor Commissioner shall issue and serve a stop order prohibiting the use of the unregistered contractor or the unregistered subcontractor on all public works until the unregistered contractor or unregistered subcontractor is registered. The stop order shall not apply to work by registered contractors or subcontractors on the public work. (2) A stop order may be personally served upon the contractor or subcontractor by either of the following methods: (A) Manual delivery of the order to the contractor or subcontractor personally. (B) Leaving signed copies of the order with the person who is apparently in charge at the site of the public work and by thereafter mailing copies of the order by first class mail, postage prepaid to the contractor or subcontractor at one of the following: (i) The address of the contractor or subcontractor on file with either the Secretary of State or the Contractors' State License Board. (ii) If the contractor or subcontractor has no address on file with the Secretary of State or the Contractors' State License Board, the address of the site of the public work. Page 176 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 32 of 37 (3) The stop order shall be effective immediately upon service and shall be subject to appeal by the party contracting with the unregistered contractor or subcontractor, by the unregistered contractor or subcontractor, or both. The appeal, hearing, and any further review of the hearing decision shall be governed by the procedures, time limits, and other requirements specified in subdivision (a) of Section 238.1. (4) Any employee of an unregistered contractor or subcontractor who is affected by a work stoppage ordered by the commissioner pursuant to this subdivision shall be paid at his or her regular hourly prevailing wage rate by that employer for any hours the employee would have worked but for the work stoppage, not to exceed 10 days. (k) Failure of a contractor or subcontractor, owner, director, officer, or managing agent of the contractor or subcontractor to observe a stop order issued and served upon him or her pursuant to subdivision (j) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in county jail not exceeding 60 days or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both. (I) This section shall apply to any bid proposal submitted on or after March 1, 2015, and any contract for public work entered into on or after April 1, 2015. This section shall also apply to the performance of any public work, as defined in this chapter, on or after January 1, 2018, regardless of when the contract for public work was entered. (m) Penalties received pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the State Public Works Enforcement Fund established by Section 1771.3 and shall be used only for the purposes specified in that section. (n) This section shall not apply to work performed on a public works project of twenty- five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less when the project is for construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work or to work performed on a public works project of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) or less when the project is for maintenance work." d. Labor Code section 1771.4 states the following: "(a) All of the following are applicable to all public works projects that are otherwise subject to the requirements of this chapter: (1) The call for bids and contract documents shall specify that the project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. (2) The awarding body shall post or require the prime contractor to post job site notices, as prescribed by regulation. (3) Each contractor and subcontractor shall furnish the records specified in Section 1776 directly to the Labor Commissioner, in the following manner: (A) At least monthly or more frequently if specified in the contract with the awarding body. (B) In a format prescribed by the Labor Commissioner. (4) If the contractor or subcontractor is not registered pursuant to Section 1725.5 and is performing work on a project for which registration is not required because of subdivision (f) of Section 1725.5, the unregistered contractor or subcontractor is not Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 33 of 37 required to furnish the records specified in Section 1776 directly to the Labor Commissioner but shall retain the records specified in Section 1776 for at least three years after completion of the work. (5) The department shall undertake those activities it deems necessary to monitor and enforce compliance with prevailing wage requirements. (b) The Labor Commissioner may exempt a public works project from compliance with all or part of the requirements of subdivision (a) if either of the following occurs: (1) The awarding body has enforced an approved labor compliance program, as defined in Section 1771.5, on all public works projects under its authority, except those deemed exempt pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1771.5, continuously since December 31, 2011 . (2) The awarding body has entered into a collective bargaining agreement that binds all contractors performing work on the project and that includes a mechanism for resolving disputes about the payment of wages. (c) The requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall only apply to contracts for public works projects awarded on or after January 1, 2015. (d) The requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) shall apply to all contracts for public work, whether new or ongoing, on or after January 1, 2016." B. STATE PUBLIC WORKS APPRENTICESHIP REQUIREMENTS 1. State Public Works Apprenticeship Requirements: a. The Contractor is responsible for compliance with Labor Code section 1777.5 and the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 230 — 230.2 for all apprenticeable occupations (denoted with "#" symbol next to craft name in DIR Prevailing Wage Determination), whether employed by the Contractor, subcontractor, vendor or consultant. Included in these requirements is (1) the Contractor's requirement to provide notification (i.e. DAS-140) to the appropriate apprenticeship committees; (2) pay training fund contributions for each apprenticeable hour employed on the Contract; and (3) utilize apprentices in a minimum ratio of not less than one apprentice hour for each five journeyman hours by completion of Contract work (unless an exception is granted in accordance with Labor Code section 1777.5) or request for the dispatch of apprentices. b. Any apprentices employed to perform any of the Scope of Work shall be paid the standard wage to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade for which such apprentice is employed, and such individual shall be employed only for the work of the craft or trade to which such individual is registered. Only apprentices, as defined in California Labor Code section 3077, who are in training under apprenticeship standards and written apprenticeship agreements under California Labor Code sections 3070 et seq. are eligible to be employed for the Scope of Work. The employment and training of each apprentice shall be in accordance with the provisions of the apprenticeship standards and apprentice agreements under which such apprentice is training. 2. Compliance with California Labor Code section 1777.5 requires all public works contractors to: a. Submit Contract Award Information (DAS-140): Page 178 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 34 of 37 i. Although there are a few exemptions (identified below), all Contractors, regardless of union affiliation, must submit contract award information when performing on a California public works project. ii. The DAS-140 is a notification "announcement" of the Contractor's participation on a public works project—it is not a request for the dispatch of an apprentice. iii. Contractors shall submit the contract award information (you may use form DAS 140) within 10 days of the execution of the prime contract or subcontract, but in no event later than the first day in which the Contractor has workers employed on the public work. iv. Contractors who are already approved to train apprentices (i.e. check "Box 1" on the DAS-140) shall only be required to submit the form to their approved program. v. Contractors who are NOT approved to train apprentices (i.e. those that check either "Box 2" or "Box 3" on the DAS-140) shall submit the DAS-140 TO EACH of the apprenticeship program sponsors in the area of your public works project. For a listing of apprenticeship programs see http://www.dir.ca.gov/Databases/das/pwaddrstart.asp. b. Employ Registered Apprentices i. Labor Code section 1777.5 requires that a contractor performing work in an "apprenticeable" craft must employ one (1) hour of apprentice work for every five (5) hours performed by a journeyman. This ratio shall be met prior to the Contractor's completion of work on the project. "Apprenticeable" crafts are denoted with a pound symbol "#" in front of the craft name on the prevailing wage determination. ii. All Contractors who do not fall within an exemption category (see below) must request for dispatch of an apprentice from an apprenticeship program (for each apprenticeable craft or trade) by giving the program actual notice of at least 72 hours (business days only) before the date on which apprentices are required. iii. Contractors may use the "DAS-142" form for making a request for the dispatch of an apprentice. iv. Contractors who are participating in an approved apprenticeship training program and who did not receive sufficient number of apprentices from their initial request must request dispatch of apprentices from ALL OTHER apprenticeship committees in the project area in order to fulfill this requirement. v. Contractor should maintain and submit proof (when requested) of its DAS-142 submittal to the apprenticeship committees (e.g. fax transmittal confirmation). A Contractor has met its requirement to employ apprentices only after it has successfully made a dispatch request to all apprenticeship programs in the project area. vi. Only "registered" apprentices may be paid the prevailing apprentice rates and must, at all times work under the supervision of a Journeyman (Cal. Code Regs., tit 8, § 230.1). c. Make Training Fund Contributions i. Contractors performing in apprenticeable crafts on public works projects, must make training fund contributions in the amount established in the prevailing wage rate publication for journeymen and apprentices. ii. Contractors may use the "CAC-2" form for submittal of their training fund contributions. iii. Contractors who do not submit their training fund contributions to an approved apprenticeship training program must submit their contributions to the California Apprenticeship Council (CAC), PO Box 420603, San Francisco, CA 94142-0603. Page 179 Rev. 5/8/20 Page 35 of 37 iv. Training fund contributions to the CAC are due and payable on the 15th day of the month for work performed during the preceding month. v. The "training" contribution amount identified on the prevailing wage determination shall not be paid to the worker, unless the worker falls within one of the exemption categories listed below. 3. Exemptions to Apprenticeship Requirements: a. The following are exempt from having to comply with California apprenticeship requirements. These types of contractors do not need to submit a DAS-140, DAS-142, make training fund contributions, or utilize apprentices: i. When the Contractor holds a sole proprietor license ("Owner-Operator") and no workers were employed by the Contractor. In other words, the contractor performed the entire work from start to finish and worked alone. ii. Contractors performing in non-apprenticeable crafts. "Apprenticeable" crafts are denoted with a pound symbol "#" in front of the craft name on the prevailing wage determination. iii. When the Contractor has a direct contract with the Public Agency that is under $30,000. iv. When the project is 100% federally-funded and the funding of the project does not contain any city, county, and/or state monies (unless the project is administered by a state agency in which case the apprenticeship requirements apply). v. When the project is a private project not covered by the definition of public works as found in Labor Code section 1720. 4. Exemption from Apprenticeship Rations: a. The Joint Apprenticeship Committee shall have the discretion to grant a certificate, which shall be subject to the approval of the Administrator of Apprenticeship, exempting the Contractor from the 1-to-5 ratio set forth in this Section when it finds that any one of the following conditions are met: i. Unemployment for the previous three-month period in such area exceeds an average of fifteen percent (15%); or ii. The number of apprentices in training in such area exceeds a ratio of 1-to-5 in relation to journeymen; or iii. The Apprenticeable Craft or Trade is replacing at least one-thirtieth (1/30) of its journeymen annually through apprenticeship training, either on a statewide basis or on a local basis; or iv. If assignment of an apprentice to any work performed under the Contract Documents would create a condition which would jeopardize such apprentice's life or the life, safety or property of fellow employees or the public at large, or if the specific task to which the apprentice is to be assigned is of such a nature that training cannot be provided by a journeyman. b. When such exemptions from the 1-to-5 ratio between apprentices and journeymen are granted to an organization which represents contractors in a specific trade on a local or statewide basis, the member contractors will not be required to submit individual applications for approval to local Joint Apprenticeship Committees, provided they are already covered by the local apprenticeship standards. Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 36 of 37 5. Contractor's Compliance: a. The responsibility of compliance with this Section for all Apprenticeable Trades or Crafts is solely and exclusively that of the Contractor. All decisions of the Joint Apprenticeship Committee(s) under this Section are subject to the provisions of California Labor Code section 3081 and penalties are pursuant to Labor Code section 1777.7 and the determination of the Labor Commissioner. Page Rev. 5/8/20 age 37 of 37 EXHIBIT A— SCOPE OF EXPENDITURES APPLIES TO AGREEMENT ARPA21-PRJC-006-RAN BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 1. The following is the mutually agreed upon scope of expenditures to be funded by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CLFRF) received by San Bernardino County: Rancho Cucamonga Family Resource Center Project: General repairs, improvements to, and equipment replacement at the Rancho Cucamonga Family Resource Center to include replacement of the heating and air conditioning systems with ventilation to mitigate COVID-19 and other communicable disease transmission, replacement of flooring, installation of energy efficient lighting, community kitchen improvements, interior and exterior paint and courtyard improvements for outdoor gatherings. With these improvements, the programs offered at the Family Resource Center can continue to focus on creating equitable services and aim at reducing racial/ethnic disparities. 2. Not-to-exceed amount of expenditures described in 1, above, obligated during the period of July 1, 2022 and December 31, 2024 and expended on or before December 31, 2026 is $775,000. 3. The following is the list of projected expenditures that will be funded by the CLFRF and each of these expenditures satisfy the findings in 1, above: Expenditure Type(e.g., Payroll) Projected Expenditures* Contracted Services $775,000 Total Expenditure $775,000 *Note: Projected expenditures may differ from the actual costs but a total amount of expenditure shall not exceed the amount as specified in Section 2, above. 4. The Contractor is responsible for ensuring that any procurement using CLFRF funds, or payments under procurement contracts using such funds are consistent with the procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at Title 2 C.F.R. Sections 200.317 - 200.327, as applicable. The Uniform Guidance establishes in Title 2 C.F.R. Section 200.319 that all procurement transactions for property or services must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition, consistent with standards outlined in Title 2 C.F.R. Section 200.320. If the full and open procurement is not applicable, provide a reason for its exemption: Confirmed — No exemption identified Page 182 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA tr-r- DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Kenneth Fung, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration to Accept the LMD-4R Terra Vista — Water Conservation / Landscape Renovation FY 20-21 Project as Complete, File the Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Retention and Bonds. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Accept the LMD-4R Terra Vista—Water Conservation /Landscape Renovation FY 20- 21 Project, Contract No. 2021-037, as complete. 2. Approve the final contract amount of$420,776.63. 3. Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Bond. 4. Authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of$405,653.90, six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received. 5. Authorize the Public Works Services Director to file a Notice of Completion and release of the retention in the amount of$21,106.17, 35 days after acceptance. BACKGROUND: The LMD-4R Terra Vista —Water Conservation / Landscape Renovation FY 20-21 Project scope of work consisted of the removal and replacement of trees, landscaping, hardscape, irrigation systems plus other related items of work along the south side of Base Line Road between Milliken Avenue and Spruce Avenue. Pertinent information of the project is as follows: Budgeted Amount: $447,000.00 Publish Dates for Local Paper: _ November 3, 2020 and November 10, 2020 Bid Opening: December 5, 2020 Contract Award Date: March 3, 2021 Low Bidder: Conserve Landcare LLC Contract Amount: $405,653.90 Contingency: $41,340.00 Final Contract Amount: $420,776.63 Difference in Contract Amount: $15,122.73 (3.7 %) Page 183 ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Services Director. The net increase in the total cost of the project is a result of seven (7) Contract Change Order (CCO). One CCO added the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Spruce Avenue to the project scope of work. Other CCO's extended the electronic wiring, resulted in additional 1 gallon plant being installed and increased the amount of concrete mow curbs. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2020/21 adopted budget for this project was $400,000.00 to be funded from account numbers 1134303-5650 (Landscape Maintenance District 4R). An additional $47,000.00 was appropriated from the LMD-4R fund balance to award this project and to have a contingency. The annual irrigation and landscape maintenance costs along the project limits will be reduced. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The LMD-4R Terra Vista—Water Conservation/Landscape Renovation FY 20-21 Project reflects the City Core Values by promoting and enhancing the appearance and high quality of life along the Base Line Road corridor. This project also embraces and anticipates the future by converting existing landscapes to meet State drought requirements ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Notice of Completion Page 2 Page 184 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Govt.Code Sec.27383 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The undersigned is an owner of an interest or estate in the hereinafter described real property, the nature of which interest or estate is: All public rights-of-way within the boundaries of Contract No.2021-037 2. The full name and address of the undersigned owner is: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, P. O. BOX 807, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730. 3. On July 20, 2022,there was completed in the hereinafter described real property the work of improvement set forth in the contract documents for: LMD-4R Terra Vista—Water Conservation/Landscape Renovation FY 20-21 Project Removal and replacement of trees, landscaping, hardscape, irrigation systems plus related work 4. The name of the original contractor for the work of improvement as a whole was: Conserve Landcare LLC. 5. The real property referred to herein is situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, California, and is described as follows: South side of Base Line Road between Milliken Avenue and Spruce Avenue (no Assessor Parcel Number for roadway) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,a Munici..l Corporation, Owner I he--by ,ertify under pen.lty of perjury that the fore!oin t rue a . orr-c I jj• DATE William Wittkop' Executed in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Public Works Services Dire or California Attachment 1 —Notice of Completion     Page 185 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: ITEM D19 - 7/20/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ffilir MEMORANDUM DATE: July 20, 2022 Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Jeff Benson, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Kenneth Fung, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: Revisions to Consideratoin to Accept the LMD-4R Terra Vista —Water Conservation / Landscape Renovation FY 20-21 Project as Complete, File the Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Retention and Bonds (CITY) At the July 20, 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council will consider accepting the LMD-4R Terra Vista — Water Conservation / Landscape Renovation FY 20-21 Project as Complete. The item is listed on the agenda as D19 under the Consent Calendar. The "Background:" section of the Staff Report has been modified with the following changes. • The "Final Contract Amount:" has been changed to "$425,231.15". • The "Difference in Contract Amount:" has been revised to "$18,230.25 (4.5%)". • The number of Contract Change Orders increased to eight (8). This $3,107.52 increase in the Final Contract Amount is the result of extra work requested by the City's Project Manager for this project. Back in October 2021, the contractor installed the first grouping of plants according to the project plans. The City's Project Manager, when inspecting the work, realized that the plants were installed too close together. The City's Project Manager directed the contractor to dig up and temporarily repot the plants; fill in the abandoned holes; layout and dig new plant holes according to the plants' recommended spacing; prepare the new holes with planting mix, fertilizer, water, etc.; and reinstall the plants. This work took four members of the contractor's staff a full workday to complete. The City's Project Manager supervised and signed off on this extra work. On Friday, July 15, 2022, the contractor discovered that they had forgotten to invoice the City for this extra work and sent staff a request for a change order to account for this extra work. Page 186 Page 1 of 1 (1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1�r DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Baldwin Ngai, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration to Accept as Complete, File a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Retention, and Bonds for the Fiscal Year 20/21 Traffic Signal Modification Project (Contract No. 2021-010). (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Accept the Fiscal Year 20/21 Traffic Signal Modification Project, Contract No. 2021-010 (Project), as complete; 2. Approve the final contract amount of$209,074; 3. Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Bond 35 days after recordation of Notice of Completion and accept a Maintenance Guarantee Bond; 4. Authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of$209,074 5. Authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and release of the project retention, 35 days after recordation of Notice of Completion; and 6. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the release of the Maintenance Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship. BACKGROUND: On February 3, 2021, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc. for construction of traffic signal modifications at the intersections of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue, Carnelian Street and Lemon Avenue, and Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue in the amount of $209,074 and a 10% contingency in the amount of $20,907. A copy of the February 3, 2021 City Council staff report is on file with the City Clerk. A vicinity map is included as Attachment 1. The scope of work for the project consisted of the installation of conduit, conductors, pullboxes, re-wiring, traffic signal cabinets, related traffic signal equipment, trenching and paving, and sidewalk repair. Page 187 ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. There had been no significant change in the final quantities and the total cost for the project is the same as the contracted amount. At the end of the one-year maintenance period, if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship, the City Clerk will release the Maintenance Bond upon approval by the City Engineer. FISCAL IMPACT: A total of $272,100 was appropriated for the project from the Gas Tax R&T Fund (Fund 174). Further, additional funding for inspection services was budgeted from the Gas Tax R&T Fund (Fund 174). The project funding is summarized below. Account No. Funding Source Description Amount 11743035650/2031174-0 Gas Tax Fund Traffic Signal Mod Foothill at $96,925 174 Etiwanda 11743035650/2035174-0 Gas Tax Fund Traffic Signal Mod Lemon at $175,175 174 Carnelian & Base Line at Etiwanda 1174303-5350 Gas Tax Fund Contract Inspection Services $8,000 174 Total Project Funding $280,100 The final project construction cost and final accounting on support services is $229,694 as shown below. Expenditure Amount Final Construction Contract $209,074 Construction Inspection Services $20,620 Total Project Cost $229,694 A total of$50,406 remains in the budget for this project and will be returned to the Gas Tax Fund (174) fund balance to be used for future capital improvement projects. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION /VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's Core Values by ensuring the construction of high-quality public improvements that promote success as a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 —Vicinity Map Page 2 Page 188 ATTACHMENT 1 FISCAL YEAR 2020/21 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS PROJECT VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Hillside Rd +° F<<. iue Hd rialsiae Rd f Cf � � oson Ave Chaffey College School Banyan St Banyan St ®Lernon Ave a Lemon Ave \lyrr e %/into } 0r n Alta Lorna Dr n 0, — — c m Alta Loma n, W w Victoria St Grapeland la} r - n I 3 Thi i. W Cni U Base Line Rd EU d M > a +a p f a ro : RI < = ra E 4o ry itt n 4.0 LI (0 11.3 al Rancho ,o aCucamonaLig `• Arrow Rte ar fi Project Location(s) m A I of 3: Intersection of Lemon Ave and Carnelian St N 2 of 3: Intersection of Etiwanda Ave and Base Line Rd 3 of 3: Intersection of Etiwanda Ave and Foothill Blvd Page 189 r r- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA an 7- cri DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Noah Daniels, Finance Director SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution by the City Council, as the Code Reviewing Body Pursuant to the California Political Reform Act, Approving the Conflict of Interest Code for the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD Public Financing Authority (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-093)(CITY). RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, as the code reviewing body pursuant to the California Political Reform Act, adopt a Resolution to approve the Conflict of Interest Code for the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD Public Financing Authority ("RC EIFD Public Financing Authority"). BACKGROUND: On February 16, 2022, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (ROI) establishing the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority as the governing board for the Rancho Cucamonga Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District. The RC EIFD Public Financing Authority was required to adopt its own Conflict of Interest Code in accordance with the California Political Reform Act. However, the Conflict of Interest Code is not in effect until approved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which serves as the code reviewing body for the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority. ANALYSIS: The Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000, et seq., requires every state or local government agency to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code. On May 10, 2022, the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority adopted its own Conflict of Interest Code which set forth the terms of a standard model Conflict of Interest Code. Each member of the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority, as well as the alternates, Executive Director, General Counsel, and consultants, will file statements of economic interests (Form 700) to disclose any financial interests as required. The City Clerk will maintain statements of economic interest filed by designated officials in the Conflict of Interest Code. Adoption of the Resolution is recommended in order to complete this process for the EIFD. Any future amendments to the Conflict of Interest Code will need to be approved by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact from this item. Page 190 COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The approval of the Conflict of Interest Code for the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority reflects the Council's core values of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future, and maintaining the highest standards of behavior by promoting public trust. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-093 Page 2 Page 191 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-093 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AS THE CODE REVIEWING BODY PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA POLITICAL REFORM ACT, APPROVING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA EIFD PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 87300 and 87302, the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD Public Financing Authority ("RC EIFD Public Financing Authority") has adopted and incorporated by reference the terms of the standard model conflict of interest code adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) by Title 2, Division 6, California Code of Regulations, Section 18730, and a list setting forth (1)designated positions of officers, employees, and consultants; and (2) required conflict of interest disclosure categories for the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority adopted Resolution No. PFA 2022-001, approving the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority Conflict of Interest Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, as the code reviewing body pursuant to Government Code Section 82011(c), must approve the Conflict of Interest Code for the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority; and WHEREAS, the list of designated positions and reportable disclosure categories of the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority, as set forth in Appendix I and Appendix II attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as follows: 1. In accordance with Government Code Sections 87300 and Section 87302, the Conflict of Interest Code for the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority is approved in its entirety by this Resolution and the appendices attached hereto. 2. The standard Conflict of Interest Code set forth in California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the FPPC and the Appendices I and II constitute the Conflict of Interest Code for the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority. 3. Persons holding designated positions listed in the attached Appendix I, including temporary employees of the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority, and consultants who are required to disclose pursuant to Appendix II, must file the Form 700 — Statement of Economic Interests when required by the California Political Reform Act or notified to do so by the City Clerk or designee or by the terms of an employee or consultant agreement with the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority in accordance with the Act. 4. Nothing in this Resolution should be construed to allow any consultant retained by the RC EIFD Public Financing Authority to make or participate in making or in any way attempt to influence a governmental decision in which he or she knows or has reason to know he or she has a financial interest. Disqualification in the event of a conflict of interest is governed by the California Political Reform Act in Section 87100 and following of the Government Code and its Regulations. Page 192 5. All agreements with consultants, whether or not such a consultant is required to file a disclosure statement in accordance with this Resolution, shall provide that the consultant shall avoid all conflicts of interest or appearances of conflicts of interest in performing the agreement. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of JULY, 2022, by the following vote: L. Dennis Michael, Mayor AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 20th day of July 2022. ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk Page 193 APPENDIX "I" DESIGNATED POSITIONS Designated Positions Disclosure Categories Member of Board of Directors 1, 2, 3, 4 Member of Board of Directors (Alternate) 1, 2, 3, 4 Executive Director 1, 2, 3, 4 General Counsel 1, 2, 3, 4 Consultants 5 Page 194 APPENDIX "II" DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES Designated positions must report financial interests in accordance with the assigned disclosure categories. Category 1: Persons in this category shall disclose interests in real property located within the jurisdiction of the Rancho Cucamonga Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District. Real property shall be deemed within the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD Public Financing Authority's ("Authority") jurisdiction if the property or any part of it is located within two miles of the borders of the Rancho Cucamonga Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, or within two miles of any land owned or used by the Authority. Designated persons are not required to disclose property used primarily as their principal residence. Category 2: Persons in this category shall disclose reportable income from persons or business entities that have contracted with the Authority, or that provide, plan to provide, or have provided within two years from the time a statement is required under this Conflict of Interest Code, contractual services, or other services, supplies, materials or equipment of the type utilized by the Authority. Category 3: Persons in this category shall disclose reportable investments in business entities that contract with the Authority or that provide, plan to provide or have provided within two years from the time a statement is required under this Conflict of Interest Code, contractual services, or other services, supplies, materials or equipment of the type utilized by the Authority. Category 4: Persons in this category shall disclose reportable business positions in business entities that contract with the Authority or that provide, plan to provide or have provided within two years from the time a statement is required under this Conflict of Interest Code, contractual services, or other services, supplies, materials or equipment of the type utilized by the Authority. Category 5: See following page for designated consultants and disclosure categories. Page 195 Designated Consultants' Disclosure Requirements Consultants who make (not just All reportable interests in real property in recommend) governmental decisions, the jurisdiction; reportable income and such as whether to approve a rate, rule, business positions; reportable or regulation, whether to issue, deny, investments; and reportable gifts, unless suspend, or revoke any permit, license, the Executive Director determines in application, certificate or similar writing that a particular consultant is hired authorization, adopt or grant approval to a to perform a range of duties that is limited plan, design, report, study, or adopt or in scope and thus is not required to fully grant approval of policies, standards, or comply with the disclosure requirements guidelines for the Authority. described in the section.2 Consultants who serve in a staff Disclosure required at the same level as capacity with the Authority, and in that a comparable designated position capacity participate in making a identified elsewhere in this Code. governmental decision by providing information, an opinion, or a recommendation for the purpose of affecting the decision without significant intervening substantive review. Consultants who perform the same or Disclosure required at the same level as substantially all the same duties for the comparable designated position the Authority that would otherwise be identified elsewhere in this Code. performed by an individual holding a designated position in this Conflict of Interest Code. Not all outside contractors meet the consultant definition in FPPC Regulation 18700.3, as described above. Form 805, Agency Report of Consultants, will be used by the Authority Secretary to determine disclosure requirements. 1 When the consultant is a corporation or partnership, only individuals who fit into one of the three categories of"Designated Consultants" must file disclosure statements. 2 If the Executive Director determines in writing that a particular consultant is not required to fully comply with the requisite disclosure requirements, then such written determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The Executive Director's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. Page 196 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA crr ir DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Noah Daniels, Finance Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolutions Approving the Special Tax Levy for Various Community Facilities Districts and the Special Annual Benefit Assessment for Drainage Area No. 91-2 for the Fiscal Year 2022/23. (RESOLUTION NOS. 2022-094 to 2022-109) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolutions approving the special tax levy and special annual benefit assessment, as applicable, for the following Community Facilities Districts and Benefit Assessment District (each a "District" and collectively the "Districts") for the Fiscal Year 2022/23: 1. Community Facilities Districts No. 2000-01 (South Etiwanda), 2. Community Facilities Districts No. 2000-02 (Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park), 3. Community Facilities Districts No. 2000-03 (Rancho Summit), 4. Community Facilities Districts No. 2000-03 Special Tax "B" (Rancho Summit), 5. Community Facilities Districts No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area Nos. 1 and 2), 6. Community Facilities Districts No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area No. 3), 7. Community Facilities Districts No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 1), 8. Community Facilities Districts No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 2), 9. Community Facilities Districts No. 2004-01 (Rancho Etiwanda Estates), 10. Community Facilities Districts No. 2006-01 (Vintner's Grove), 11. Community Facilities Districts No. 2006-02 (Amador on Route 66), 12. Community Facilities Districts No. 2017-01 (North Etiwanda), 13. Community Facilities Districts No. 2018-01 (The Resort at Empire Lakes), 14. Community Facilities Districts No. 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services), 15. Community Facilities Districts No. 2022-02 (Industrial Area Services), and 16. Drainage Area No. 91-2 (Day Canyon Drainage Basin) BACKGROUND: Annually, before the County's direct assessment enrollment in August, the City Council must adopt a Resolution approving the levy of special tax and special benefit assessment for each District. If approved, staff will file the certified list of all parcels subject to the levy for each District with the County of San Bernardino to be included in the property owner's property tax billings. The City Council has previously authorized the formation of the Districts, including the services provided or the bonded indebtedness secured by the Districts. Page 197 ANALYSIS: Community Facilities Districts The Districts will levy special taxes to pay for the public facilities and services, the principal and interest debt service, and other administrative costs. Special taxes are levied to pay current and future debt service until the bonds are repaid or for public facilities and services on an ongoing basis. The table below summarizes the total special tax levy and maturity date for each District with outstanding bonded indebtedness for the Fiscal Year 2022/23. Changes to the special tax levy are recommended based on an analysis of each District's ability to have adequate resources to pay current and future debt service payments. District/Name Bond Maturity Fiscal Year 2022/23 Notes CFD No. 2000 01 September 2025 $73,922 No change from the prior year. (South Etiwanda) CFD No. 2000-02 September 2025 $517,806 No change from the prior year. (Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park) CFD No. 2000-03 September 2035 $566,112 No change from the prior year. (Rancho Summit) CFD No. 2001-01 September 2031 $670,447 No change from the prior year. (Improvement Areas Nos. 1 and 2) CFD No. 2001-01 September 2031 $61,467 No change from the prior year. (Improvement Area No. 3) CFD No. 2003 01 September 2033 $1,225,344 Increased 2%for debt service. (Improvement Area No. 1) CFD No. 2003 01 September 2033 $209,165 Increased 2%for debt service. (Improvement Area No. 2) CFD No. 2004 01 September 2036 $2,350,660 No change from the prior year. (Rancho Etiwanda Estates) CFD No. 2006 01 September 2037 $288,959 No change from the prior year. (Vintner's Grove) CFD No. 2006-02 September 2037 $183,158 No change from the prior year. (Amador on Route 66) The table below summarizes the special tax levies for the Districts which will provide maintenance and services in perpetuity by a single-family residence or by the acre. Generally, the special tax levy is based on changes in operating costs and capital replacement plans for each District. Fiscal Year Fiscal Year District/Name Maximum 2021/22 2022/23 Notes CFD No. 2000-03 Increased 2%to reflect an Special Tax'B" $1,560.43 $1,529.83 $1,560.43 increase in operational costs. (Rancho Summit) CFD No. 2017-01 No residential parcelshave been (North Etiwanda) $1,019.99 $0 $0 developed; rate is on hold pending Residential Property development CFD No. 2017-01 (North Etiwanda) $2,475.65 $0 $20 No change from prior year.Maybe Undeveloped Property explain why$20? Page 198 CFD No. 2018-01 Increased 3%to reflect an (The Resort at increase in operational costs and Empire Lakes) $369.00 $358.25 $369.00 build reserves for future capital Residential Property _ projects. CFD No. 2018-01 Decreased 14.3%as a result of an (The Resort at Empire Lakes) $6,057.58 $1,858.29 $1,592.51 increasing number of residential Undeveloped Property properties in the District. CFD No. 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services) Tax Zone No. 1 $22.67 $0 $0 Tax Zone No. 2 $75.17 $0 $0 No annual special tax levy; Tax Zone No. 3 $47.15 $0 $0 annexed properties will be levied Tax Zone No.4 $28.96 $0 $0 upon issuance of building permits. Tax Zone No. 5 $63.79 $0 $0 Tax Zone No. 6 $51.40 $0 $0 Tax Zone No. 7 $58.64 $0 $0 Tax Zone No. 8 $37.79 $0 _ $0 CFD No. 2022-02 No annual special tax levy; (Industrial Area Services) $5,852.00 $0 $0 annexed properties will be levied Industrial Property upon issuance of building permits. Benefit Assessments for Drainage Area No. 91-2 (Day Canyon Drainage Basin) The District consists of 363 residential parcels which are generally located north of Wilson Ave between Day Creek Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. For the Fiscal Year 2022/23, staff determined the current assessment of $72.17 per residential parcel is sufficient to meet all District's financial obligations. The annual assessment for the District pays for maintenance and servicing of a 27-acre-foot desilting basin and a 1,460-linear foot concrete drainage channel. FISCAL IMPACT: Special tax and special annual benefit assessment revenues collected for each District are used for the related public facilities and services, debt service payments, and administration costs for only that District. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's core value of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future by complying with reporting requirements for special taxes and special annual benefit assessment revenues to provide public facilities and services, debt service payments, and administrative costs for the Districts. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Resolution CFD 2000-01 Attachment 2 —Annual Status Report— CFD 2000-01 Attachment 3— Resolution CFD 2000-02 Attachment 4 —Annual Status Report - CFD 2000-02 Attachment 5— Resolution CFD 2000-03 Attachment 6—Annual Status Report- CFD 2000-03 Attachment 7— Resolution CFD 2000-03 Special Tax "B" Attachment 8—Annual Status Report - CFD 2000-03 Special Tax "B" Attachment 9— Resolution CFD 2001-01 (Improvement Area No. 1 and 2) Attachment 10 —Annual Status Report— CFD 2001-01 (Improvement Area Nos. 1 and 2) Attachment 11 — Resolution CFD 2001-01 (Improvement Area No. 3) Attachment 12 —Annual Status Report— CFD 2001-01 (Improvement Area No. 3) Attachment 13 — Resolution CFD 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 1) Page 199 Attachment 14 —Annual Status Report— CFD 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 1) Attachment 15 — Resolution CFD 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 2) Attachment 16 —Annual Status Report— CFD 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 2) Attachment 17 — Resolution CFD 2004-01 Attachment 18 —Annual Status Report - CFD 2004-01 Attachment 19 — Resolution CFD 2006-01 Attachment 20 —Annual Status Report - CFD 2006-01 Attachment 21 — Resolution CFD 2006-02 Attachment 22 —Annual Status Report— CFD 2006-02 Attachment 23 — Resolution CFD 2017-01 Attachment 24 —Annual Status Report— CFD 2017-01 Attachment 25 — Resolution CFD 2018-01 Attachment 26 —Annual Status Report— CFD 2018-01 Attachment 27 — Resolution CFD 2022-01 Attachment 28 —Annual Status Report— CFD 2022-01 Attachment 29 — Resolution CFD 2022-02 Attachment 30 —Annual Status Report— CFD 2022-02 Attachment 31 — Resolution BAD 91-2 Attachment 32 —Annual Status Report— BAD 91-2 Page 200 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2000-01 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2000-01 (South Etiwanda) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds were previously issued for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District (the "Prior Special Tax Bonds"); and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body, by the adoption of Resolution No. 15-147 on August 5, 2015, previously established the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year based, in part, upon the debt service payable on the Prior Special Tax Bonds; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2015, special tax refunding bonds were issued by the District to refund the Prior Special Tax Bonds resulting in a reduction in the debt service payable from the special taxes levied within the District. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District are hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rates as set forth in such Annual Status Report do not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and are not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax are used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of administering the District and any bonds of the District; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 1 of 2 Page 201 ATTACHMENT 1 The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 2 of 2 Page 202 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-01 SOUTH ETIWANDA ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTX 1 T 2 BACKGROUND On November 7, 2000, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2000-01 (South Etiwanda) (the "District") authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $1,365,000. On November 15, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 645 authorizing the levy of a Special Tax in the District. Bonds were issued on December 21, 2000, for the purpose of financing the acquisition of certain public facilities that included street, sewer, water, storm drain, landscaping and park improvements that were required for and would permit the development of the properties within the District. The District is located east of Interstate 15 and is bordered by Foothill to the south, East to the east, Base Line to the north, Etiwanda to the west and is intersected by Miller. On December 7, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-179 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2012, in the principal amount of $658,000 were issued on December 21, 2011. This amount represented the outstanding principal balance of the original bonds as of this date. On July 1, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-115 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District in conjunction with various other community facilities districts. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2015, were refunded with a total principal amount of$18,546,000 and were issued on July 30, 2015. By authorizing this refunding, the City Council provided savings to the property owners for the remaining life of the bond issue, that translated to a 4.85% overall reduction in the annual debt service payment paid by property owners. The annual special tax is based on the square footage of the home for residential properties. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations. Community Facilities District No. 2000-01 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTI .1T 2 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-01 ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Description Building Size Assigned Special Tax 1. Residential Property > 2,301 Sq Ft $283.66 2. Residential Property 1,801 - 2,300 Sq Ft $269.48 3. Residential Property < 1,800 Sq Ft $241.11 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-01 PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 73,930 Interest Revenue 520 Total Proposed Sources 74,450 Uses Debt Service Principal Repayments 48,000 Interest Expense 5,250 Subtotal - Debt Service 53,250 Contract Services 2,000 Assessment Administration 16,250 Admin./General Overhead 190 Total Proposed Uses 71,690 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 2,760 Community Facilities District No. 2000-01 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTX8 \ 1T 2 -nn cn• 0 v i < } City of Rancho Cucamonga -<- c _ m 03 a Community Facilities District No. 2000-01 CD = RANCHO jl ti ax Y South Etiwanda NO- —n ax orrl i CJ.� I. • . 1� _ _ _ ' rV o= ; .uue.e.e.1.ul.l.r.l.l.uuugruug.l.,.l.l.l.g: p.1.1.1.1.ue.1.l.g.uut.1.L1.1�at N m- 1 i - • Q oi iV j - W N j ` j L U cc ! t 1 j Wilson Av W �.I.I... . f i a o s Banyan St - i1.1.1.er N O 19th St 1V L y Base Line Rd +'Irak rBase Ling Rd r II. %1P1 1 '' j Foothill BI i _ ...... .FA.„..„ Foothill BI j V i Arrow Rt-• i Arrow Rt • j i • 8th St�..._......1.1.^ j e w ¢ i I ! (i) 6th St! ! to a ; ! LB Legend —I D 4th Styli '4th St 1 me tit.1.1.1.....t.e.ytl.e.e.l.e.e.l lrft.1-1-1 1.1.e.e.e.t.ti CFD 2000-01 naps,cad,ma geogmphlo Horrnsm Cl >xtm.)araleo by ane[}rough me Ory d narcho 4aamerrga are pnoa.�as a peat moure d general Hormonal. } } T he city of Rar.rn n,mnnrya man.rev im:lles rn merman,rl l on;wararta d Q d < Q < ..1.1' as to re torte.,smarm...ay,mmk�l�.mrdlas d orgy Jri awn C maned leyea lerery TFe u$shale u�,ea Ie re mr for any reason �, City Limits arTd a Mo..le Mmendenw a 1' any and al Ira-maim;marled harm C 7 . i�•y� The Cq d fhrho Co rqa=WIIa1N aril w[hoet Notation lecher.s arty Crs WI C [0 tB ✓p s and r.nant� Indrdlry,brt rce Ilmtb l to,the!mplled.nanbe -C L } or nereunbbde and Promo fora parnasor pupae.TFe City of Rondo Cumnvr. v V COCU MilesGCS) Slut ne[}c aoag nor xsure any looIr1 rrfyarrJ of de mansion for(l)ary = = 4 W V ilea LL rims,[rnatrrs Er Inamroe.In aro mfmretU1 pradled arcrpr Ill)ow rondo or LL rT C rearealmoaMrqu:lam lel a any persons upon to rrrftt 1 u maton melee.harem -J 0 .I N W RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2000-02 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2000-02 (Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds were previously issued for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District (the "Prior Special Tax Bonds"); and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body, by the adoption of Resolution No. 15-148 on August 5, 2015, previously established the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year based, in part, upon the debt service payable on the Prior Special Tax Bonds; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2015, special tax refunding bonds were issued by the District to refund the Prior Special Tax Bonds resulting in a reduction in the debt service payable from the special taxes levied within the District. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District are hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rates as set forth in such Annual Status Report do not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and are not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax are used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of administering the District and any bonds of the District; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 1 of 2 Page 207 ATTACHMENT 3 The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 2 of 2 Page 208 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-02 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORPORATE PARK ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTX8 \ T 4 BACKGROUND On November 7, 2000, the electors within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2000-02 (Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park) (the "District") authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $6,835,000 for the purpose of financing the acquisition of street improvements on public street improvements required as a condition of approval of development of the property within the proposed district including Milliken, Arrow and Foothill; such street improvements to include, but not to be limited to: demolition and grading, curb, gutter and sidewalks, traffic signals; entry feature and signs; fire hydrants; storm drains; water and sewer improvements; paving; striping; landscaping and irrigation improvements; public utilities and appurtenances. On December 7, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-179 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2011, in the principal amount of $5,407,000 were issued on December 21, 2011. This amount represented the outstanding principal balance of the original bonds as of this date. On July 1, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-115 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District in conjunction with various other Community Facilities Districts. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2015 were refunded with a total principal amount of $18,546,000 and were issued on July 30, 2015. By authorizing this refunding, the City Council provided savings to the property owners for the remaining life of the bond issue, that translated to a 4.72% overall reduction in the annual debt service payment paid by property owners. Each July 1, commencing July 1, 2012 the maximum annual special tax will be increased by two percent (2%) of the amount in effect for the previous fiscal year. The special taxes will be levied as follows: (1) The special tax will be levied on each taxable parcel in an amount equal to 100% of the applicable maximum annual special tax; or (2) If the special tax requirement will be satisfied by an amount less than the maximum annual special tax the special tax will be levied proportionately on each taxable parcel at less than 100% of the maximum annual special tax. Therefore, for Fiscal Year 2022/23 the current rate is sufficient to meet fiscal obligations and there is no need for an increase of the special tax by 2%. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations. Community Facilities District No. 2000-02 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTX� RIT 4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-02 ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 There will be no increase to the special tax for the District. The annual tax rate for Fiscal Year 2022/23 will be $3,792.06 per acre. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-02 PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 517,810 Interest Revenue 1 ,600 Total Proposed Sources 519,410 Uses Debt Service Principal Repayments 446,000 Interest Expense 51 ,850 Subtotal - Debt Service 497,850 Contract Services 2,000 Assessment Administration 46,800 Admin./General Overhead 340 Total Proposed Uses 546,990 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ (27,580) Community Facilities District No. 2000-02 1 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTX8 \JT 4 71n v, o v 6 : City of Rancho Cucamonga -< c _ c < a Community Facilities District No. 2000-02 > fl C C -, RANCHO ;' : ,_ E > '_ Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park N CUCAMONGA M1.. ! [6 I_ QU iO O q�j ■ • C.1 4 I c N ...........1.uI.I.T.Ir1.1.1.1.1-.-....1.1.1.1.1..: ■1.1.1.1.1.....1.1-1....-1.1.4I.I. A • N = I ■tee ■ W i ` j jri p Hillside Rd i _ _ _ j a) •_ci ro i Wilson Av m * _ ; N ; W L1.1.1., f n' 1 u ■ O I,Z EaI1` 91i t * 11.1.11.1r N ,. CI ■ O ti rrra — — — � — —.der = — .- 210 — — +. --- N 19t11 ��N > s 13 Base Line Rd -,51hilli u r Base Line Rd • rf • j i Foothill BI 0 , j Foothill BI ■ ,. I j r Arrow Rt i Arrow Rt •j 8tI ti1.1.1.1.1.Y.Y., j < • 7 t r1.1..i ■ > o asbth St - n D �; ; i w Legend 5 4th Sty M 14th St 11.1.1.1.1.1.1...1.....I.......1..1.1.1.1 1.1.1.1...1.1. **''}}/f�1//''��//''�� /f�1��77 >0 The naps,data,and peop.phk rforrnaboo(']rimrattol)arollobk 6y or though �❑ L4Jalal-4JL /��`�� betty d Reecho Grim ate printed ars a pul�lr rtmur¢ill wren.'r lormonni . 7 > } l Y� T Cry nl Porno O�rtu;p maim rnr ovum rn wsraey,na tma Er 4�"m < < < Q < .m1.1' toor .tel .anatoo or tin-dines r arty hf,r orl L ' CRY Limits misruled m �n rk do,a apn z UrQ a any rennin - COCU iv "Cl i1.1 and a ailclal m rdmerelmouy reify ant or aY lob-mono unsorted herein The Coy of Paso tir rqa ogUcw am ort sot Unman discerns any and ail E [9 •— �j �1., tcptoef ms are wenan= !Ironing,Est rd limited m.the Mari,.nonnc L L = } L ) of rnerdmnn6.q and Proms tot a naroa,ar pupae.Tie Oty of Rancho Cumnvrp v Q] Z -C Mal ner-er a�nor assure any hobtty repmdiaa or or Ialeanon for(I)and _ . = W Miles errors.unmans m 111.7611riCIM In ary Info-motto proden onto'III)urn shoo or 4 CA) manioc marnap me Inarty parsons roue upon Umirknnatlon Bellaire herein - fl RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000- 03A (RANCHO SUMMIT) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2000-03A (Rancho Summit) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the referenced District are hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax are used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 1 of 2 Page 213 ATTACHMENT 5 cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 201" day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 2 of 2 Page 214 ATTACHMENT 5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03A (RANCHO SUMMIT) ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTP6g1T 6 BACKGROUND On October 11, 2000, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2000-03A (Rancho Summit) (the "District") authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $9,835,000. On July 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 744 approving the levy of the special tax and on September 21, 2005, approved Resolution No. 05-278 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District was authorized to finance park improvements including clearing and grading of park sites, park hardscape and restrooms, street improvements and parkway hardscape landscaping of parks and parkways and park equipment with a useful life of five (5) years or more. The District is bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest to the north, the 210 Freeway to the south, Interstate 15 Freeway to the east and East to the west. On July 16, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-127 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2014 in the principal amount of $8,500,000 were issued on July 31, 2014. By authorizing this refunding, the City Council provided annual savings to the property owners of approximately $120,000 for the remaining life of the bond issue. Each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property within the District shall be assigned to a Zone and further classified as Developed Property, Taxable Public Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, or Undeveloped Property and shall be subject to Special Taxes in accordance with this Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment. Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Classes 1 through 10 and Non-Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Class 11. Community Facilities District No. 2000-03A (Rancho Summit) 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATT,k8VT 6 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03A ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Land Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Assigned Special Tax 1 Residential Property < 1,850 Sq. Ft $1,286.21 2 Residential Property 1,850—2,049 Sq. Ft $1,430.88 3 Residential Property 2,050—2,249 Sq. Ft $1,527.32 4 Residential Property 2,250—2,449 Sq. Ft $1,541.65 5 Residential Property 2,450—2,649 Sq. Ft $1,552.94 6 Residential Property 2,650—2,849 Sq. Ft $1,684.05 7 Residential Property 2,850—3,049 Sq. Ft $1,855.09 8 Residential Property 3,050—3,049 Sq. Ft $1,904.07 9 Residential Property 3,250—3,249 Sq. Ft $2,017.09 10 Residential Property => 3,450 Sq. Ft $2,031.41 11 Non-Residential N/A $9,493.97 per Acre Property Community Facilities District No. 2000-03A (Rancho Summit) . 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTX JT 6 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03A PROPOSED USES AND SOURCES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 566,120 Interest Revenue 2,690 Total Proposed Sources 568,810 Uses Debt Service Principal Repayments 304,000 Interest Expense 205,960 Subtotal - Debt Service 509,960 Contract Services 2,000 Assessment Administration 19,260 Admin./General Overhead 370 Total Proposed Uses 531,590 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 37,220 Community Facilities District No. 2000-03A (Rancho Summit) . 3 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATT,k81T 6 -nn tn' o v < < City of Rancho Cucamonga CD = _ a Community Facilities District No. 2000-03 -, `G RANCHO 1� °' �_ Rancho Summit CUCAMONGA v.. ■ [O a) L N T4 o + � U 2 Q 2 r N n i II : gIst.i.i.t....a.1.1.....1.1.41.1,ffl1e N > ■ N) Q fn B < ! ` C o Hillside Rd ! !�' �° ■ — - - i bVilsan Av 1 + _ i C ❑ w �.t.t.t.t I" n' f _a i Z +* p Banyan St ii.1.,...- o ** o i - z�a -- _ — — - — 19th St►,ram D i ¢ — ► 15 z Base Line Rd -. o 3 + Base Line Rd o ►. d. ►r i (i) i ! i c 3 ■-I - G . I Foothill BI Foothill BI ,;• B r i • Arrow Rt i I _ Arrow Rt i I I I ■ Sth Sti.■...■.■.■ia., 1 ¢ *I I d › mGtI7 Si!IL 7 1 LI i w Legend —I4th [' + I► loth St Sty1.1.1.1.I.I.I...t.....I.....r.t.r.t.t.t•I ..........1.ts CFD 2000-03 The nom.&Ea.ab gergmMlc riamwar(']rlvnattn')31.511adr by and eraoupr > me ClLyThe i)Ur norma o�nlpr�are pawned as a pan mans e a rlornmana < Q CIn ofRar>iv Cumnnra�matt ru inpllrs re nar.arq r a general, r .°^ ¢iemrtee '< .i t.1' as 10 v m¢e rIw xaa,al am c m iacicka,�ornrtdirca of awry Lim�w rn C [p warded Ell C >_ tB ■ City Limits tl ',DU h b nilr heron- Tha art upon U nLr z 1rloat for nasalannasal 06 L1T Q] Q] d] ana k ancltd m fdmecdenlry rel.,. am aria al In....du. peaerma hereon E ❑ - ■I.I Oa The Cry d{arch°Oramurga ea ld%.ab,.rthart Ifni lion dhobfre:arty and rJI ..= E CID - fl] ri Zo repr ss and mama= Ifl J.Eat net Wean]m,the Varied w.rta rmc T L = L o!meraumNq Ana assure a reams far a n �r pupae.'he Ory d{ado Cumnar� Li drat Ieerc aorert Y aabltty.regards d to°nonce for(I) . _ = Q W Miles imam.weans a Inarnrnrolm In any mfmramn warden ardro CII)ary slen or 0) .action s ma•m any x c per nu upon lie up ere b.furmua awleatle hereha -� 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX "B" FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 (RANCHO SUMMIT) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2000-03B (Rancho Summit) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the Special Tax "B" to be collected for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District are hereby determined and established as set forth Annual Status Report to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by the Ordinance, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of Special Tax "B" shall be used, in whole or in part, for the following: A. Payment of costs and expenses of the operation and maintenance of authorized parks and parkways and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act; B. Payment of an amount necessary to fund or replenish an operating reserve for the costs of the operation of authorized parks and parkways; and C. Payment of a proportionate share of Administrative Expenses as such term is defined in the Modified Rate and Method. The proceeds of Special Tax "B" shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 1 of 2 Page 220 ATTACHMENT 7 SECTION 5: Special Tax "B" shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of Special Tax "B," and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 201" day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 2 of 2 Page 221 ATTACHMENT 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03 B (RANCHO SUMMIT) ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTX81 T 8 BACKGROUND On August 16, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution No. 00-149 and established Community Facilities District No. 2000-03B, (the "District"). On October 11, 2000, the qualified electors of the District, being the owners of the land within the District, voted to approve the levy of a special tax to pay for certain public services and the administering of such District. On July 6, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 744 approving the levy of the special tax and on September 21, 2005 approved Resolution No. 05-278 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District was authorized to finance park improvements, including, clearing and grading of park sites, park hardscape and restrooms, street improvements and parkway hardscape landscaping of parks and parkways and park equipment with a useful life of five (5) years or more. The District is bounded by the San Bernardino National Forest to the north, the 210 Freeway to the south, Interstate 15 Freeway to the east and East to the west. Each fiscal year, all Taxable Property within the District shall be assigned to a Zone and further classified as Developed Property, Taxable Public Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, or Undeveloped Property and shall be subject to Special Taxes in accordance with this Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment. Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Classes 1 through 10 and Non-Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Class 11. Annually on July 1, the Maximum Special Tax "B" shall be increased based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index, with a maximum annual increase of six percent (6%) and a minimum annual increase of two percent (2%) per Fiscal Year. At this time, in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet the District expenses without adversely impacting maintenance, a rate increase to the Maximum Special Tax "B" is required. This equates to a 2.0% increase from the prior year. Maximum Actual Fiscal Year CPI Rate Assessment per Assessment per EBU EBU 2018/19 3.50% $1,309.18 $1,309.18 2019/20 6.00% $1,387.73 $1,387.73 2020/21 6.00% $1,470.99 $1,470.99 2021/22 4.00% $1,529.83 $1,529.83 2022/23 2.00% $1,560.43 $1,560.43 Community Facilities District No. 2000-03B 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTX8 TE 1T 8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03B ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Land Use Maximum Class Description Residential Floor Area Special Tax B 1 - 10 Residential Property <1850 Sq. Ft to => 3,450 Sq. Ft $ 1,560.43 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-03B PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 561,750 Anticipated Prior Year Delinquencies Collection 4,940 Subtotal -Taxes 566,690 Interest Revenue 3,960 Total Proposed Sources 570,650 Uses Personnel Services 211,420 Operations and Maintenance 27,500 Contract Services 84,040 Utilities 123,140 Assessment Administration 1 ,290 Admin./General Overhead 79,520 Total Proposed Uses 526,910 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 43,740 Community Facilities District No. 2000-03B 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTX8NT 8 -nn cn o < a' < City of Rancho Cucamonga m = m m Community Facilities District No. 2000-03 clo- .� RANCH la 12� Rancho Summit a,GunaroG,, ... i Nov j � _ ¢ _ _ 2 N n .uuuuul.ul.I.r.,.,.uuu..uu..I.r.,.I.I..— ■I_,.,.,.,...........uul.1 ,�i.. ), N — • • cc > • N = ii I I�e eV ' r co ` d - C ; p Hillside Rd G i ' 'D CV 1 >. i Wilson Av i - i i4 w c� i 5 ' y •I.,., o oZ Banyan St +* I,.,.,...- _ ��f - -- 0 19?th St%, — 1r' W co I. ¢ * 15 Base Line Rd +� + - Base Line Rd �• r i i i • i Foothill BI 0 ,+, i Foothill BI i + Arrow Rt- : Arrow ow Rt •i i 8th Stir....■....,.,., i y > It* rI.I..: v 120s6th Stit to �; ; i n Legend D c 7 4th 5ti :� !4th St „. ,...ab peopmphc. e,iQm.n aalme and d.agh CFD 2000-03 rlre aY d ParchP Ommor.art P�anazl as a W Nt�ooui¢[/mad arnrta. The Cry d Rawer Cianfo mis Mk.rcr inplles ry heron",reprexrlaton a-;moralism .i 1.1' as do Om .=Len ,aoo,a�oQrolef «andlnes. any Irliancike t L ,� ' City Limits warded m you harem ire dvdd no upon is >� for any mffn cn Q] q7 a] i,., and directed m Fdmadentn aaiy arty and I ,danabon�rted been O Y The CFI r/f�rdm.4rarrwrga eaplI nn am vatllart Inaction dbmras arty and all 19 - renreaerlla<1ms and lermr . Including,brt ra Ilmlbb do,the Implied tartan 4.1 L L = d rnerdienhh.q and fEres for a padlaiar Pine.The 4q of Rardn Cuanon '-d-d 41 cu U ahaa nether acceptnor assure any.adieu.repard�of ale muahrn for(q any = = O W Miles ermq rrnvvrs a lnamrra�In aro inks-mourn pradetl aroma-pi)any shell or L N �I (A) Irmalon�irfp du:to airy persons Manoe upon tO Irrkmubon a.Ihrle Moen L•L �.5 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area Nos. 1 and Improvement Area No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds were previously issued for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District (the "Prior Special Tax Bonds"); and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body, by the adoption of Resolution No. 15-149 on August 5, 2015, previously established the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year based, in part, upon the debt service payable on the Prior Special Tax Bonds; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2015, special tax refunding bonds were issued by the District to refund the Prior Special Tax Bonds resulting in a reduction in the debt service payable from the special taxes levied within the District. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District are hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rates as set forth in such Annual Status Report do not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and are not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax are used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of administering the District and any bonds of the District; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 1 of 2 Page 226 ATTACHMENT 9 The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 2 of 2 Page 227 ATTACHMENT 9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 AND 2 ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTA8Igf 10 BACKGROUND On June 20, 2001, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area Nos. 1 and 2) (the "District") authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $14,240,000. On August 15, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 01-019 authorizing the issuance of bonds. Bonds were issued on August 29, 2001, to share in the financing of public street improvements required for the development of the property within the District; including, improvements to Day Creek, Victoria Park, Church, Foothill, Base Line and Arbor; landscaping improvements within public right-of-way; and storm drain and flood control improvements. On December 7, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-179 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2012, in the principal amount of $9,093,000 were issued on December 21, 2011. This amount represented the outstanding principal balance of the original bonds as of this date. On July 1, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-115 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District in conjunction with various other Community Facilities Districts. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2015, were refunded with a total principal amount of $18,546,000 and were issued on July 30, 2015. By authorizing this refunding, the City Council provided savings to the property owners for the remaining life of the bond issue, that translated to a 12.09% overall reduction in the annual debt service payment paid by property owners. The special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations. Each fiscal year, all Taxable Property within Improvement Area No. 1 and Improvement Area No. 2 shall be classified as Developed Property, Final Mapped Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, Taxable Public Property, or Undeveloped Property and all such Taxable Property shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment pursuant to the sections below. The property in Improvement Area No. 1 is residential in use. The property in Improvement Area No. 2 is primarily commercial and contains Victoria Gardens. Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area No. 1 and 2) Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHMEA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 LAND USE DESCRIPTION RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ASSIGNED SPECIAL TAX CLASS 1 Single Family Property => 3,250 Sq Ft $1,115.90 per Dwelling Unit 2 Single Family Property 2,950 to 3,249 Sq Ft $894.84 per Dwelling Unit 3 Single Family Property 2,650 to 2,949 Sq Ft $805.04 per Dwelling Unit 4 Single Family Property 2,350 to 2,649 Sq Ft $691.32 per Dwelling Unit 5 Single Family Property 2,150 to 2,349 Sq Ft $646.69 per Dwelling Unit 6 Single Family Property 1,950 to 2,149 Sq Ft $594.61 per Dwelling Unit 7 Single Family Property < 1,950 Sq Ft $498.43 per Dwelling Unit 8 Apartment Property Not Applicable $125.94 per Dwelling Unit 9 Non-Residential Property Not Applicable $4,462.52 per Acre IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2 LAND USE DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED SPECIAL TAX CLASS 1 Apartment Property $125.94 Per Dwelling Unit 2 Other Residential Property $5,721.95 per Acre 3 Non-Residential Property $0.33 Per Sq Ft. of Non-Residential Floor Area Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area No. 1 and 2) Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHM4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 670,450 Total Proposed Sources 670,450 Uses Debt Service Principal Repayments 425,000 Interest Expense 170,320 Subtotal - Debt Service 595,320 Contract Services 2,000 Assessment Administration 55,900 Admin./General Overhead 420 Total Proposed Uses 653,640 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 16,810 Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area No. 1 and 2) Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTACHNP/lgie4 -nn cn' o < < City of Rancho Cucamonga f _ m a Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 CD- = g ,� RANCHO L " Improvement Area No. 1 and No. 2 o , � L3 f N .l.l.n.r.r.uuur.r.ur.r.r.l.r.r.r: ■r.1.l.l.l.....poupoupr....r.l. l.l,e M1 N ' 1 ion ■ ND U A co (1) i ! i a' -a 1 _p Hillside Rd ` I U. a i Wilson Av �' i i f° w nt -CILr.r.r.r 1 n' ti C 1 o Banyan St * il.r.• N) ! o o 19th St+rr 216 P t a ' ' —-C3 .4.. _ 15 a Base Line Rd -'I I 1 t poor + — Base Line Rd 11 D - i D1[11 v Foothill BI 11 •� Foothill BI z / o Arrow Rt _ I Arrow Rt • Q 8th St:r.r.r.r.r.l.l.r N) , > �. r,.,..: Legend L• � a # a mmi City Limits —i 'o e36th St.. ; i r.r-- n La . i w CFD 2001-01 _ 5 4th St 1 '� r.r.1.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.r.I.....I.l.,.l.l.lp.1ou....r.r.rM4th St K-o The maps:dam,and peopraphle rfomislun elnlmrrsvr')ayalmt by ane though 7 > > > Improvement Area 1 r theory or raRm a,amea..are area al as a pout e fated rfo.menm 7 The �u3d��Cusa norts.nal=roc �� P�n Improvement Area 2 _Iv .muz a. .> a,a�x arfr.�«n di.�e li C a(� C C L Ell RaVdd Co}w lush, TTe user ddn net hey upon ere lrlva�mn f«any reason C6 C > Q] 47 aw a ainxeaf m rdmerdenuy welly arty and al ldcn aeon uzx,bd heron C U C f �J The eey a fmrd.o ar rqa oq:lwuy are mahout Irneemn eedaras mry and all C E . �P rspoer.alors and r.nan� In�mrg,as r¢nmmn m.the Impled r.nands N t L = L d rnaduneeier and fEres for partkriar ourrEe.The Oly of Pardo Commit Li a) dray netl,c aoa non assure any Kraft reganJ of no carbon for CI)sof _ 'k = a W Miles error,.oresslens or Inaoo rrol=In any Info-motto pradetl o4rrr SO wry sllon or r iran=ran the any persona rbran=upon nz brfornuncn a.lbae moan Q-� 0 ew to RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2001-01 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 3) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area No. 3) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds were previously issued for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District (the "Prior Special Tax Bonds"); and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body, by the adoption of Resolution No. 15-150 on August 5, 2015, previously established the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year based, in part, upon the debt service payable on the Prior Special Tax Bonds; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2015, special tax refunding bonds were issued by the District to refund the Prior Special Tax Bonds resulting in a reduction in the debt service payable from the special taxes levied within the District. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District are hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rates as set forth in such Annual Status Report do not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and are not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax are used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of administering the District and any bonds of the District; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 1 of 2 Page 233 ATTACHMENT 11 The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 2 of 2 Page 234 ATTACHMENT 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 3 ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTA8M gh- 12 BACKGROUND On June 20, 2001, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area No. 3) (the "District") authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $935,000. On August 15, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 01-019 authorizing the issuance of bonds. Bonds were issued on August 29, 2001, to share in the financing of public street improvements required for the development of the property within the District; including, improvements to Day Creek, Victoria Park, Church, Foothill, Base Line and Arbor; landscaping improvements within public right-of-way; and storm drain and flood control improvements. On December 7, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-179 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2012, in the principal amount of $9,093,000 were issued on December 21, 2011. This amount represented the outstanding principal balance of the original bonds as of this date. On July 1, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-115 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District in conjunction with various other Community Facilities Districts. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2015 were refunded with a total principal amount of $18,546,000 and were issued on July 30, 2015. By authorizing this refunding, the City Council provided savings to the property owners for the remaining life of the bond issue, that translated to a 6.29% overall reduction in the annual debt service payment paid by property owners. The special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations. Each fiscal year, all Taxable Property within each Zone of Improvement Area No. 3 shall be classified as Taxable or Non-Taxable Property and all such Taxable Property shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment pursuant to the section below. Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area 3) 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTADRI61 12 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 TAXABLE BOND SHARE ASSIGNED TAX ACREAGE PER ACRE ZONE 7-LEGGIO 37.48 8.30% $1,640.00 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2001-01 PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 61 ,470 Total Proposed Sources 61,470 Uses Debt Service Principal Repayments 41 ,000 Interest Expense 16,490 Subtotal - Debt Service 57,490 Admin./General Overhead 120 Total Proposed Uses 59,610 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 1,860 Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 (Improvement Area 3) 2 ��- I Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTAEN'T 12 -nn ern' o v a a > City of Rancho Cucamonga CD . �h.ti a c Community Facilities District No. 2001-01 .� RANCHO L = Improvement Area No. 3 a oNrh _... _ < _ _ ON ni MIMIMIMIMIMI_ut.h_r_]M']_uul_1_uu._h_r_h_h_uI- p_]_]_h-h_1_1_1-1-1.1P1-h_h_Lh_h,eit N i� - j C7 1 _ ■ NJCOj j d I y 0 Hillside Rd ! j a +. j • °fiI5uii AV r-, . ❑ -I_I-]—h f L 1 o Banyan St * -h_h_.1 m o #* 1 _. ` . r 19th5t — _ 2�a r f , < o Base Line Rd +k cc Base Line Rd 2 en• j CD I j - - j 111 - D e re j Foothill BI v Foothill BI ;••; r W •j j Arrow Rt ! Arrow Rt • i 1 8th 5t;1_1_1_1_1_h_h_ i r ♦, rh_h_1; Legend I ii' d36th S ' t '1_1� City Limits to i i u2 CFD 2001-01 4th 5t—1_1_h_h_h_h_h_I_h_1_._I_I_1_i_h- -h-h `r •_._._._._,.:dth St CYO The maps.doh,are peographk Hornrdloo Ctre rr +.)avatleeE by and though Imprav Area 3 Zone 1 �-tas me Oty of fareha OmmoT,ps are poet as a pnde hoar¢re ran!Harman > �y�F�D,� „r Oto dRar� a�r�a,a�_r.raks r�,_.aa��.�a�r�e � Imprav Area 3 Zone 7 as m uz ,r,a�arx mrplder�«nndanes d ouch lrimr�lan C L ;melded Co you Feein Te our dvn net eh upm.e Lion-v a any meson [x3 v�i a�i al QJ C �) eid a Maenad m w='--w reify arty and t Lionmem amer ed herein O > �C }' J The CLy d Pond.flrarrorga eclnay rn aedwat lent/Mon dtsmtns try and of ' E _ "'+ � repn�bis are memoriam, InddIry,hi rot!Imam]to.the Imard r.nannes N L = u d rnadunoIdfy and floes as potl¢lar ooze.The Oty of fenao Cum. n U E shin nether at= y labia reyard�of ere am for p) ry = _ W Miles morn.rrresolcns a Inamrarm In ary Info-modal graded ara;fv(II)wry o or 1 N CA) roan.marring nm to any persms M ance opal re Hormonal atolhue herein -� 0 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX RATE FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 1) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the referenced District are hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax are used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 1 of 2 Page 239 ATTACHMENT 13 SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 2 of 2 Page 240 ATTACHMENT 13 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTAMIAVV 14 BACKGROUND On February 19, 2003, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 1) authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $14,645,000. On March 5, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 699 approving the levy of the special tax and on May 21, 2003 approved Resolution No. 03-125 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District consists of approximately 229 gross acres, of which 147 acres are designated as Improvement Area No. 1. The District boundary is located in the eastern part of the City generally west of Interstate 15, south of Church, north of Arrow and east of the Southern California Edison easement corridor from Arrow north, to Foothill and Day Creek from Foothill north, to Church. The District is located within the Victoria Planned Community. Bonds were issued on August 20, 2003, to share in the provision of funds for the purpose of financing the acquisition and construction of the facilities which consist of Day Creek, Victoria Park, Church, Foothill, Base Line and Arbor; storm drain and flood control facilities and water and sewer improvements to be owned and operated by Cucamonga Valley Water District; and a cultural center owned by the City, that includes a performing arts center, public library and banquet hall/meeting room. On July 3, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-110 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2013, in the principal amount of $14,170,000 were issued on July 30, 2013. This amount represented the outstanding principal balance of the original bonds as of this date. The rates for the District will increase by 2.0 % in Fiscal Year 2022/23 to meet fiscal obligations for the District. The special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations. Each fiscal year, all Taxable Property within Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3 of the District shall be classified as Developed Property or Undeveloped Property and shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment pursuant to the sections below. Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area 1) 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTADRI6fgf 14 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 ASSIGNED BACKUP SPECIAL TAX SPECIAL TAX (per acre) (per acre) NOTE ZONE 1 DEVELOPED Both Assigned and Backup PROPERTY $6,337.00 $6,989.78 can increase 2% every year ZONE 1 UNDEVELOPED Backup can increase 2% PROPERTY $0.00 $6,989.78 every year ZONE 2 DEVELOPED Both Assigned and Backup PROPERTY $11,463.85 $58,748.82 can increase 2% every year ZONE 2 UNDEVELOPED Backup can increase 2% PROPERTY $0.00 $18,671.95 every year ZONE 3 DEVELOPED Both Assigned and Backup PROPERTY $10,712.45 $16,626.59 can increase 2% every year ZONE 3 UNDEVELOPED Backup can increase 2% PROPERTY $0.00 $16,626.59 every year Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area 1) 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTAD I�N31 14 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 1 ,225,350 Interest Revenue 4,770 Total Proposed Sources 1,230,120 Uses Debt Service Principal Repayments 562,550 Interest Expense 570,000 Subtotal - Debt Service 1 ,132,550 Contract Services 2,000 Assessment Administration 23,910 Admin./General Overhead 550 Total Proposed Uses 1,159,010 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 71,110 Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area 1) 3 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTADI�N4f 14 -nn o ° City of Rancho Cucamonga C < < Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 `D :' r- E E c °' Improvement Area No. 1 .� RANCHO t Y aut ardr�Gw 1.... _ rc I- al ro — NO -nj U Y � = = z N n .uuuc.a. .y.l.l.r.l.l.uu1•1•I .l..r.lMl.y: ■1.I.I.I.i.e.e.i—i—i e.a.l.l.yi-1�,e A_ • 1 cow i� i s n 1 0/r i ¢ . ,L, i p Hillside Rd • , p. i\Nilson Av ' I C.) - O W Li.,-1.. f' a i oBanyan St !s i1.1. yJ• o s Is ,� 6 19th 5ti , -- — ii ,- < .1140 a Base Line Rd ! • o -Base Line Rd ,r r o If i la D I Nil - v Foothill BI . { t Foothill BI — 1 Arrow Rt j Arrow Rt i stht= i Legend ■IMI.I■I.I■ia,, < 4 i a' City Limits ai .l.y� D 'a mbtl7 S • G CFd 2003-01 113 —I C3 ) i i W 5 4th St' ;k !4th St Irnprov Area 1 Zone 1 til.l.la.l.l.l.aa.l.uu..uc.+.,...,-,-, I.I.e.e.a.l.li OD The maw.dam.and Iecgrspke I-Anwon Clrfvrr.rsr')aurlme by and&erusr the City d raRln Gaamorga are prcatd as a nude reaouren d;erasal hforrmtlon. n > I m p rov Area 1 Zone 2 The Oty of Rare.t umncrrga make rcr inpllc re nsrrarr6 rrpm-4+raao^or guarantee as la f a lert,seems,ate.,�raefraes or nn.dlms as ar,r lri,r on C [4 C C . [p bra'dd m re hens Tre user shred t nee upon[re Wow..far any ranee BD [f] 4] q] mv ad s a,�m rdmaderey, arry l ,gem heron a , ;� Improv Area 1 Zone 3 The Cry of Rancho ara raW rwrrya eapll are wen.sm, lynraaun aemrrss arty and all = r12CD = Co \. reprmentee,s and warrants, Ina,dlry,hi rat Ilml.1 to.the Impend r.rmrt cu A L = d nerd e..14 and Peres for a parcniar nes e.The ory of rerrd-o cumnava = i q/ ' u dal per as nor eau.a 4 Helix,regards of me amino for(i)any _ +-� Miles n�asst.a Inas..Inrr anInfo-man.prproddedIII)a prodded ardor y seen or W en madam boberrrp nun to any persr.. v rrk a neon.upon e rraanon amyl Reran fl..j U 1 a nera RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2003-01 (IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 2) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the referenced District are hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax are used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 1 of 2 Page 246 ATTACHMENT 15 cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 2 of 2 Page 247 ATTACHMENT 15 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2 ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTA8 I�f4P1 16 BACKGROUND On February 19, 2003, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area No. 2) (the "District") authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $2,855,000. On March 5, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 699 approving the levy of the special tax and on May 21, 2003, approved Resolution No. 03-125 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District consists of approximately 229 gross acres, of which 82 acres are designated as Improvement Area No. 2 (Zones 1 and 2). The District boundary is located in the eastern part of the City generally west of Interstate 15, south of Church, north of Arrow and east of Southern California Edison easement corridor from Arrow north, to Foothill and Day Creek from Foothill north, to Church. The District is located within the Victoria Planned Community. Bonds were issued on August 20, 2003, to share in the provision of funds for the purpose of financing the acquisition and construction of the facilities which consist of Day Creek, Victoria Park, Church, Foothill, Base Line and Arbor; storm drain and flood control facilities and water and sewer improvements to be owned and operated by Cucamonga Valley Water District; and a cultural center owned by the City, that includes a performing arts center, public library and banquet hall/meeting room. On September 17, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-162 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2013, in the principal amount of $2,784,000 were issued on September 30, 2013. This amount represented the outstanding principal balance of the original bonds as of this date. The rates for the District will increase by 2.0 % in Fiscal Year 2022/23 to meet fiscal obligations for the District. The special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations. Each fiscal year, all Taxable Property within Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the District shall be classified as Developed Property or Undeveloped Property and shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to the sections below. Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area 2) 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA��-RI�N9f 16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2 ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 ASSIGNED BACKUP SPECIAL TAX SPECIAL TAX (per acre) (per acre) NOTE Both Assigned and ZONE 1 Backup can DEVELOPED increase 2°/o every PROPERTY $2,546.47 $4,530.69 year ZONE 1 Backup can UNDEVELOPED increase 2% every PROPERTY $0.00 $4,530.69 year ZONE 2 Backup can DEVELOPED increase 2% every PROPERTY $7,739.26 $13,727.54 year ZONE 2 Backup can UNDEVELOPED increase 2% every PROPERTY $0.00 $13,727.54 year Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area 2) 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTADN II P1 16 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2003-01 IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 2 PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 209,170 Interest Revenue 1 ,090 Total Proposed Sources 210,260 Uses Debt Service: Principal Repayments 115,000 Interest Expense 90,320 Subtotal - Debt Service 205,320 Contract Services 2,500 Assessment Administration 5,960 Admin./General Overhead 210 Total Proposed Uses 213,990 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ (3,730) Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 (Improvement Area 2) 3 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA8MEN1T 16 -rin �, City of Rancho Cucamonga � c n ‹ Community Facilities District No. 2003-01 CU -� z E CD = . 113 0 y Improvement Area No. 2 Now 5 i a = _ ' N n i .uuuuur.ur.Lr.1.1.1.1.I.I.......1.,.r.1.1...- p.r.r.r.r...........uur.mtr.r,.te 1 1 I Cad A ND CAD CD ± ' . 13 Hillside Rd ! ` ` ro i i ' i Wilson Av n� ' u ' o Banyan St i .r.r.r...- W : 0 — 19th St',. II > ..k, ° ¢ 3 s 15 o Base Line Rd .. 2 m + Base Line Rd *Ali r it D ; ROI, 11111111131 Foothill BI ,+, 1 Foothill BI v I tt. I IF Arrow Rt: : Arrow Rt i m i 8t11 S - ti..........r.r., i e › ' ' ;'-'-; Legend a a D o m�tl7 Si!� i t ��_i City Limits S i W . 4th St' :�k !4th St CFD 2003-01 D �1■1.1.1.1.1.1...1.....I.....a.l.r.l.Im I ..........I-,- 0-0 rn maps.dam,.d geographic yramwm e]rfernettel avilLere by and trough , eeoKorraR�am �P�.��a punt ma.�a�a ..m. Q Q > > Improv Area 2 Zone 1 The oeydaa�n,mn�.�ne�InpIr I , rI. or guarantee as m v>:urwa,cau�,am+ac.mnakn7� an-Minns d ar,ir 1rf awn C CO C C i [6 pradol m you r,�2 user dale not r .Far,ere 1nYvn�>r far any reason [B — en 41 4] 4J �, s dam Ell rd�edeny a am Lte anus pxae� hen o , ,� Improv Area 2 Zone 2 m Cep a laardro Onernonpa minwny are aad.rt un.aaor,denmr,G arry and an E = a] repreeribeens and�.� indralrq,b�!me amid m,the i,r l .name L _ = Ets dr mereemeafq and fibers for a pamalar p inane.Te>- aey or(a,dv eumn>n = i E u i accept �u�any eaiex ��ks a� x muepm for iq = a �W Miles MOM.rrre�ss Co Inamiraot In ark!nfmro t prodetl argror III my a tt or ' 1 0.5 Ill 1 6) -S m to ooaig me a�persons po er Mance upon Um Urfa-malice madame Mann RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2004-01 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2004-01 (Rancho Etiwanda Estates) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds have been authorized for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District; and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the referenced District is hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax are used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of authorized public facilities and public services; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 1 of 2 Page 253 ATTACHMENT 17 cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 201" day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 2 of 2 Page 254 ATTACHMENT 17 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2004-01 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTA8Igf 18 BACKGROUND On September 15, 2004, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2004-01 (the "District") authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the maximum principal amount of $45,000,000. On October 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 735 approving the levy of the special tax and on June 7, 2006, approved Resolution No. 06-185 authorizing the issuance of bonds. Bonds were issued on July 13, 2006, to share in the provision of funds for the acquisition and construction of certain public facilities, to serve property located within the District. The District was authorized to finance the following improvements: • Day Creek Boulevard - grading, storm drain, sewer, water, dry utilities, streets and landscaping, • Etiwanda Avenue - grading, sewer, water, dry utilities, streets, and landscaping; • Cucamonga Valley Water District ("CVWD") reservoir transmission main, • Storm drain facilities including the northern property line storm drain and the Etiwanda Avenue storm drain, • Park facilities, • Equestrian facilities, • School facilities now owned by the Etiwanda School District and by the Chaffey Joint Union High School District, • Water and sewer facilities now owned by CVWD which were authorized and financed from the proceeds of capacity charges levied by CVWD, • Flood control facilities now owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and • Open space owned by the County of San Bernardino. On January 15, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-005 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2014 in the principal amount of $34,384,000 were issued on February 07, 2014. This amount represented the outstanding principal of the original bonds as of this date. The annual special tax is based on the square footage of the home for residential properties. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations. Community Facilities District No. 2004-01 (Rancho Etiwanda Estates) 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTADI�I1 18 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2004-01 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) TERM OF SPECIAL TAX The Special Tax shall be levied for a period not to exceed fifty years commencing with Fiscal Year 2005/06 provided, however, that special taxes will cease to be levied in an earlier fiscal year if the Community Facilities District Administrator has determined (i) that all required interest and principal payments on the District's bonds have been paid; and (ii) all authorized facilities have been constructed. ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Maximum Actual Land Use Category Developed Floor Area Special Tax Special Tax 1-Residential Property Greater than 4,000 sq ft $5,555 per unit $4,280 per unit 2-Residential Property 3,801 -4,000 sq ft $5,325 per unit $4,103 per unit 3-Residential Property 3,601 -3,800 sq ft $5,151 per unit $3,969 per unit 4-Residential Property 3,401 -3,600 sq ft $4,896 per unit $3,772 per unit 5-Residential Property Less than 3,400 sq ft $4,410 per unit $3,398 per unit 6-Non-Residential Property NA $14,800 per acre $0.00 per acre Community Facilities District No. 2004-01 (Rancho Etiwanda Estates) 2 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTAetI�ITT 18 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2004-01 (RANCHO ETIWANDA ESTATES) PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 2,350,660 Interest Revenue 19,540 Total Proposed Sources 2,370,200 Uses Debt Service Principal Repayments 1 ,285,000 Interest Expense 1 ,062,750 Subtotal - Debt Service 2,347,750 Contract Services 2,000 Assessment Administration 18,770 Admin./General Overhead 1 ,490 Total Proposed Uses 2,370,010 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 190 Community Facilities District No. 2004-01 (Rancho Etiwanda Estates) 3 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA8IEI1 18 eon o 3 , a City of Rancho Cucamonga 63 C a a Community Facilities District No. 2004-01 `D ="t °' E °' Rancho Etiwanda Estates .� RANCHO = '� C U CA.Ma..GA ...i ■ tB 4} ) rn Oa) 1 ! V r d = S N0 i .uuuuur.ur.r.r.[-I-I uu..uu..r.r.r.r.u.F ■ p—' r...............r.r.�,.,+'t N 1 ! CC ■ N — ■ COj ` j L b i { p Hillside Rd ! _ a !U m i 1 ■Wilson Av re i �^ w as !0 �.�.�.�� f' 0 f t I oBanyan St *. -i.[.�. I , . . 514, , 19th St%,rI 290 o= Base Line Rd 1 f o Ali Base Line Rd m �t i * i ■ v -Ii i v Foothill BI � f� Foothill BI m v Arrow Rt; , Arrow Rt on I •c 8th St...........r.r., i lb I o M 5th S** U f i LE !4th St Legend D54thSt ti....I.I.r.r.r..a.r.....i.....h.r.r.l.r.r" ..........l.r. (TO- The saws,=Co are mw geographic rfoon fLim_i r ')auolm byeand ervcugn ['may of areprmeiw�asawat�ou�ofgeradMor�bon > > > > > CFD 2004-01 The ornar O Cr nal=�,n e=rnwarranty,r or;wart= a a ' ¢ pm ve�d,> m,ammr-•mr cress or n�i of wry lrio<,r,aeb^ C [4 u. m you lash ne user dn,n not rey upon Me lrfowed=for any reason [Of N 4J a�7 +Gr7 - �'•y �� ad a a.cue m w=--py 'awry�*i p [ mkmmem uec+md Helen O 7 �C Vl ilM1m. I City Li m its The tq u Parch°tiranurga ecllroy are wrmwrt Irnranon uermrns any aml all C3 _ C are,.hror . Irrdhalrq,bet roe Smiled t>a.the Implied,-aanbc . C of mecmre".and ft=fora marnaaar ompme.The Jry of fend.tuan.ar. = L Q7 shill e.ra a�as assure on vary ��of the mumhm for(q a k = W Miles -, errors,oo,estes or Mamra=In ark InlermaU h month=nfl f01)any aMn« 03 -P eoei«r o� re m wry rary parsons b df..upon the 0 ,..axn a.alm o e herein 1 D-5 0 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-01 (VINTNER'S GROVE) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2006-01 (Vintner's Grove) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds were previously issued for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District (the "Prior Special Tax Bonds"); and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body, by the adoption of Resolution No. 15-151 on August 5, 2015, established the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year based, in part, upon the debt service payable on the Prior Special Tax Bonds; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2015, special tax refunding bonds were issued by the District to refund the Prior Special Tax Bonds resulting in a reduction in the debt service payable from the special taxes levied within the District; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District are hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rates as set forth in such Annual Status Report do not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and are not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax are used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of administering the District and any bonds of the District; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 1 of 2 Page 260 ATTACHMENT 19 The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 2 of 2 Page 261 ATTACHMENT 19 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-01 VINTNER'S GROVE ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTA8MffT 20 BACKGROUND On October 18, 2006, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2006-01 (Vintner's Grove) (the "District") authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $5,800,000. On November 1, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 769 approving the levy of the special tax and on December 20, 2006 approved Resolution No. 06-401 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District boundary is located on the south side of Arrow, east of Center, north of 26th and west of Haven. Bonds were issued on January 25, 2007, to share in the provision of funds for the acquisition of street improvements, landscape improvements within the public right-of- way and water and sewer improvements. On July 1, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-115 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District in conjunction with various other Community Facilities Districts. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2015 were refunded with a total principal amount of $18,546,000 and were issued on July 30, 2015. By authorizing this refunding, the City Council provided savings to the property owners for the remaining life of the bond issue, that translated to a 37.85% overall reduction in the annual debt service payment paid by property owners. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations. Each fiscal year, all Taxable Property within the District shall be classified as Developed Property or Undeveloped Property and shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to the section below. Community Facilities District No. 2006-01 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTANI6�I3r 20 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-01 (VINTNER'S GROVE) ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Floor Plan Home Size (Sq. Ft.) Number of Units Special Tax Tri-flex Plan 1 1 ,335 26 $1 ,444.32 Tri-Plex Plan 2 1 ,803 26 $1 ,664.32 Tri-Plex Plan 3 1 ,920 26 $1 ,723.98 SFD Plan 4 2,188 28 $1 ,932.18 SFD Plan 5 2,627 28 $2,099.98 SFD Plan 6 3,173 22 $2,291 .39 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-01 PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 288,960 Interest Revenue 2,160 Total Proposed Sources 291,120 Uses Debt Service Principal Repayments 144,000 Interest Expense 114,120 Subtotal - Debt Service 258,120 Contract Services 2,000 Assessment Administration 12,100 Admin./General Overhead 290 Total Proposed Uses 272,510 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 18,610 Community Facilities District No. 2006-01 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA81E�14T 20 -nn City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Facilities District No. 2006-01 fa RANCHO ��_� 1p - E Y_ Vintner's Grove CUCAMONGA .I.■ U I6 Ql ` J ID '— O Tr u = _ _ f N 0 , _r.r.r...r.r.I.I.r_r.I.I.LLI.r.I.r.._r.,.l.,rr.r.- •r1.1.1.I.r.r_r.r.rm.... rr ..1a l.lrt N _= i co CO ,,a) ±' ■ ■ 1 < . L -• Hillside Rd ! i b'di ISO n Aaa u) iii m ; N ;CIw LI.I.Ia.r f Z Banyan St'. il.l.� N lit, ri Ot .rev — /'vt - 19th St+l,t > y :ii, 11 ,15 Base tine Rd - II hie Base Line Rd u t'.1r i I r I I-11 i i Foothill BI 0 � Foothill BI ir Arrow Rt! ! Arrow Rt i 8th St;..,..._...___ i cC ¢ r o 12 ea S\ i D i w 4th St' AID !4th St Legend D11.I.I.I.r_I_r_r.r...r.I.r.._,.1.n.l.l.l I.I.r...r.rrl. 0-o TFe I,�,dab.and geogmpnk Irfarnemn I'rlmc , avelme q•and through\�� thenrFd%veb� arp aae*atr�rced�altfor,eam a a a I 'OCG-01 e City d wb Ci,o m-make rnr ropes rn r-rncrv.rxr>�Ibn pr n a,.nrtee Q Q The maim. a to I e cat t,sentaae.am,racr.m+akhtrrr$or arrdlnrs ofarryf�b lrn CIC .r C L partiedreed ym teener, The aft r i fn re lrta b meson r any n tp — T a7 qj a7 no ■ 13 is deeded al ,>m rerdemry ve n.ry any I Irh aaur:, rrxr� serer, The c Y City LI rn l t5 e Cq of fmrdro C,r y.�lldWare a are Irnbrtlfn dhrbrrc arty and all pa = ■I.Ir eproerrmnrn rs aril ne.nlem. InrfcdIr.Iat rot limited to.the Inplel...re.c f L IInerdteneagy and frame fora patfo u tar ppa q T e.TFe o .f an a rrrr r- a] P.1 del nether ao nor assure any u.n,ltyc regadd of The e raleaam for(I)an, = = 0 '-' - N nstrn error;fas cc Inam an,nraf=In a Infmram,eroded ard,rcr(II)a•,y ay or LL• r - h) rar « exart:r-n z•n1a e ro a reran;ream,uFor het,ifn fr rne a.aleae r..Inr.O CA) �.. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 2006-02 (AMADOR ON ROUTE 66) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2006-02 (Amador on Route 66) (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, at this time, bonds were previously issued for purposes of financing the project facilities for said District (the "Prior Special Tax Bonds"); and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to said District, and this legislative body, by the adoption of Resolution No. 15-152 on August 5, 2015, established the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year based, in part, upon the debt service payable on the Prior Special Tax Bonds; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2015, special tax refunding bonds were issued by the District to refund the Prior Special Tax Bonds resulting a reduction in the debt service payable from the special taxes levied within the District. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected to pay for the costs and expenses for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District is hereby determined and established as set forth in the attached, referenced and incorporated in the Annual Status Report. SECTION 3: That the rates as set forth in such Annual Status Report do not exceed the amount as previously authorized by Ordinance of this legislative body, and are not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax are used to pay, in whole or in part, the costs of the following, in the following order of priority: A. Payment of principal of and interest on any outstanding authorized bonded indebtedness; B. Necessary replenishment of bond reserve funds or other reserve funds; C. Payment of costs and expenses of administering the District and any bonds of the District; and D. Repayment of advances and loans, if appropriate. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 1 of 2 Page 266 ATTACHMENT 21 The proceeds of the special taxes shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: The special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund, bond fund, and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of the special tax, and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to this Agency a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 2 of 2 Page 267 ATTACHMENT 21 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-02 AMADOR ON ROUTE 66 ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTA8I� f 22 BACKGROUND On October 18, 2006, an election was held and the property owners within the boundary of Community Facilities District No. 2006-02 (Amador on Route 66) (the "District") authorized the District to incur bonded indebtedness in the principal amount of $2,980,000. On November 1, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 770 approving the levy of the special tax and on December 20, 2006, approved Resolution No. 06-402 authorizing the issuance of bonds. The District boundary is located south of Garcia, east of Etiwanda, north of Foothill and west of East. Bonds were issued on January 25, 2007, to share in the provision of funds for the acquisition of street improvements, landscape improvements within the public right-of- way and water and sewer improvements. On July 1, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-115 authorizing the issuance of special tax refunding bonds for this District in conjunction with various other Community Facilities Districts. The Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2015, were refunded with a total principal amount of $18,546,000 and were issued on July 30, 2015. By authorizing this refunding, the City Council provided savings to the property owners for the remaining life of the bond issue, which translated to a 28.42% overall reduction in the annual debt service payment paid by property owners. This special tax shall be levied only so long as required for each parcel of taxable property to discharge bond obligations. Each fiscal year, all Taxable Property within the District shall be classified as Developed Property, Taxable Public Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property or Undeveloped Property and shall be subject to the levy of Special Taxes in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment determined pursuant to the section below. Community Facilities District No. 2006-02 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTAD I6R1 f 22 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-02 (AMADOR ON ROUTE 66) ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Land Use Class Description Residential Floor Area Residential Floor Area 1 Single Family Detached Property >1,850 Sq. Ft. $ 2,015.67/DU 2 Single Family Detached Property 1,601 - 1,850 Sq. Ft. $ 1,930.49/DU 3 Single Family Detached Property 1,351 - 1,600 Sq. Ft. $ 1,767.29/DU 4 Single Family Detached Property <1,351 $ 1,604.09/DU 5 Non-Residential Property N/A $46,345.26/ACRE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2006-02 PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 183,160 Interest Revenue 1 ,440 Total Proposed Sources 184,600 Uses Debt Service Principal Repayments 86,000 Interest Expense 67,780 Subtotal - Debt Service 153,780 Contract Services 2,000 Assessment Administration 12,110 Admin./General Overhead 240 Total Proposed Uses 168,130 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 16,470 Community Facilities District No. 2006-02 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA6MI6r 22 -nn v 3 .1City of Rancho Cucamonga Cs0--NiD<),)..c.==<-n.: cucu.voNc. •i_ g Community Facilities District No. 2006-02 RANCHO _='"� _ € _ Amador on Route 66 • N 0 .�.uuuur.ur.r.r.[.[.uuu....u..r..[.r.r..: ■..[.[.[.[.uu.......r..r.[..[.[+`C N — ;d7 • fn ` , ` � . 0 Hillside Rd 1 - a) i> 3 i Wilson Av i , Ls, r o w Ld.d-did E o B ianyan St i i[.[.,. o as, "i zje i, . '•4 0 19th St'1" f i s ,15 Base Line Rd -. • u Base Line Rd it I -11 Foothill BI 0 Ale.. 17] Foothill BI I Arrow Rt i J Arrow Rt i • 8th 5t;,.........[.[., i D ' 6th SS o o r —I i 2 Legend D 4th St '� t7 St ---....[.[.r.r.r...r.....I.....r■iS'.[.[.[ ..I.......d-d. -y-) m ,dam,are geographic rranwan Mr/amain')ranemn')a.�t and dvicen. Q Q Q > CFD 2 06- p� be City or raRna mmmb as P�w� a cures a�d rum. 7 ��Qp ohdaa�mm mats�Rp�n meanly, �waa�a as 02 >a re content,amuse rmme,m+ako-��ar ninnies d try o tri awn C - [4 C •J L f6 I - wended m ran Fens. Tte shale nat�1 open re ddonret n for any reason [o cn as as da ■ in.) are s( m remeeenw nary ar„r and al /de- ance pre>cr� neon o > ,� City Limits zVJ Tee CL d lano Qramorga esgletOy are woke(Itntrruon decals any and all - 72 E . _ `\[■1� nepoenatkre are ranane� Indeey,but not Ilene]dra.de Implrzd warrants N -C L = } d rnerttooO in are[tries fora aamalar pmmse.The Ory a1 Rancho Cumin:nip = L as u IV anal nether a nor wire any IIaarrx,respells of.re ma=saa,for(I)anti Q = a W Miles more.orn.aurs or Inatcurad,.In any Infsmance graded antra(II)pry shoe ar e N.) Oaerne:tan.xarrra dae m petiteo trn any re ante apse to aaI�,e tear. 1 0. 0 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAX FOR NORTH ETIWANDA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to the maintenance of certain improvements by the District, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of the special tax to be collected for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District are hereby determined and established as set forth Annual Status Report to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by the Ordinance, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax shall be used, in whole or in part, for the following: A. Payment of costs and expenses of the operation, maintenance, and servicing of authorized services pursuant to the Act; B. Payment of an amount necessary to fund or replenish an operating or capital reserve for the District; and C. Payment of a proportionate share of Administrative Expenses as such term is defined in the Amended Rate and Method. The proceeds of the special tax shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: Special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 1 of 2 Page 272 ATTACHMENT 23 any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of special tax and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to the District a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 201" day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 2 of 2 Page 273 ATTACHMENT 23 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 (NORTH ETIWANDA) ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTA8 I�I�1124 BACKGROUND On May 2, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution No. 18-029, and established North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01, (the "District"). On May 2, 2018, the qualified electors of the District, being the owners of the land within the District, voted to approve the levy of a special tax to pay for certain public services and the administering of such District. On May 16, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 928 approving the levy of the special tax. The District was authorized to finance the maintenance of public trails and trailhead improvements, landscaped areas, parkways, medians and parks and recreation improvements throughout the District and public right-of-ways, including, but not limited to, street trees, fencing, irrigation systems, sidewalks, drainage systems, signs, monuments, graffiti removal, replacement, repair or rehabilitation of playground equipment, sports fields, parking lots, restrooms, sport field lighting, street lighting and other improvements placed in parks, trails, medians, landscaped areas, or public right- of-ways, furnishing of water, electric current or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for the operation of any improvement within the District. The maintenance and servicing of streetlights, traffic signals and appurtenant facilities, including but not limited to furnishing of electric current, materials, contracted services, and the necessary maintenance, replacement, and repair required to keep the improvements in operational and satisfactory condition. On, July 1 of each Fiscal Year, commencing on July 1, 2019, the Maximum Annual Special Tax set forth in the table below shall be increased by a minimum of two percent (2%) to a maximum annual increase of six percent (6%), determined on an annual basis as needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement. Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA6M16I 124 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 (NORTH ETIWANDA) MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX Percentage Maximum Annual Fiscal Year Rate Property Description Special Tax 2018/19 0.00% Residential Property $871.77 Undeveloped Property $2,117.76 2019/20 6.00% Residential Property 924.08 Undeveloped Property 2,244.83 2020/21 6.00% Residential Property 979.52 Undeveloped Property 2,379.52 2021/22 2.00% Residential Property 999.11 Undeveloped Property 2,427.11 2022/23 2.00% Residential Property 1,019.09 Undeveloped Property 2,475.65 ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX Actual Annual Special Tax Property Land Use Fiscal Year 2022/23 Residential Property $0.00 Per Single Family Residence Non-Residential Property 0.00 Per Acre Undeveloped Property 20.00 Per Acre PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 3,020 Total Proposed Sources 3,020 Uses Assessment Administration 1,200 Admin./General Overhead 20 Total Proposed Uses 1,220 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 1,800 Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA6Mb\r124 -nn cn o v r < a City of Rancho Cucamonga _ o �^ al Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 v `< RANCHO - y Y North Etiwanda N) n i ...........a...a.a.r.I.i.I.I.I.r.....r.a.ra.a.a.r._ pm.ia.1.uur.mrrur.a.i.y�.�+`c A N — - i m I ry = II I .� coN I ` , p Hillside Rd ! i er a i i >. ib' ilsonAv i s p w !.I.I.I.a f li.i., R i i Z Banyan St ! !1.1.�rr N *ci /I. * a—. — - - — — 21 fl — - -ifirwg=— o 19th St 11. �> ;# �r -- , y11 irk Base Line Rd -*! _ _ : 5 - . • Base Line Rd its r m T = i i i - i Foothill BI - f`� _ t Foothill BI i i Arrow Rt i — i Arrow ow Rt i m 8th Stir.r.r.r.r.1.1., i d a vbth Sik i -1 , � a ; ! w Legend D 4th 5ttur.I.I.I.a.a.r.a...r.I.r.r.r.,.r.,.,.lAr.,.......a.a.4tI1 St The ,dffi.ad peoprephk rrarnenw�enrmrem,�) �r�,an a}reaph CFD 2017-01 OD Mealyerr Partinemnr wep ee. as a aoarten=a�drlameam. Q d > > > The aver blown�nrr,p nuea ra r inprs a aerraev.repaeaertaam rr i amrtee d d am., a m lie .seararx amragc m,pe�rea:as tln.jlnes of arty lri Io t _ .arm he n. r e aQ Iv,e n x RF,opm re ibl em k any mean Y �, Obi L i m i is sd a Eiislm m mapa�ene,reify any and as nlcrrraem R*�reed heron C 2 _ �.J :�•�� fly) The ety a rarva. e area a lrmry aril amrarrt Irnemon darns wry and al C in _ ul = repnaemasas aril rnna� ineravg,eat rct IIC ea,the Wiled warmers L L = — a nrerdarrot.q aril Pens r«a parHmlar page.Pre aqr m undo eumnm. _ U 0.] u shednether a�nor as,, any eaia a�af en m�am for CO a„ = a w Miles N ram,arnatns a!mamma=In an,Info-imam pranen warn II nny a.+�or d' 1 0.5 n 1 W nemwn mvmp nLe in any persux Mane upon m lark ncn mailable herein. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAX FOR THE RESORT AT EMPIRE LAKES COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2018-01 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as The Resort at Empire Lakes Community Facilities District No. 2018-01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to the maintenance of certain improvements by the City, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of special tax to be collected for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District are hereby determined and established as set forth Annual Status Report to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by the Ordinance, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax shall be used, in whole or in part, for the following: A. Payment of costs and expenses of the operation, maintenance, and servicing of authorized services pursuant to the Act; B. Payment of an amount necessary to fund or replenish an operating or capital reserve for the District; and C. Payment of a proportionate share of Administrative Expenses as such term is defined in the Rate and Method. The proceeds of the special tax shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: Special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 1 of 2 Page 278 ATTACHMENT 25 administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of special tax and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to the District a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 201" day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 2 of 2 Page 279 ATTACHMENT 25 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2018-01 (THE RESORT AT EMPIRE LAKES) ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTA8m f 26 BACKGROUND On December 19, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution No. 18-136, and established The Resort at Empire Lakes Community Facilities District No. 2018-01, (the "District"). On December 19, 2018, the qualified electors of the District, being the owners of the land within the District, voted to approve the levy of a special tax to pay for certain public services and the administering of such District. The District was authorized to finance: (a) (i) the maintenance of streets, public trails and trailhead improvements, landscaped areas, parkways, medians, and parks and recreation improvements and public right- of-ways, including, but not limited to, street trees, fencing, irrigation systems, sidewalks, drainage systems, signs, monuments, graffiti removal, replacement, repair or rehabilitation of playground equipment, sports fields, parking lots, restrooms, sport field lighting, street lighting, traffic signals and appurtenant facilities and other improvements placed in parks, trails medians, landscaped areas, or public right-of-ways, furnishing of water, electric current or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for the operation of any improvement within the City, (ii) the equipping, furnishing and maintenance of public safety improvements; (iii) the furnishing of any service authorized under the Act, as may be amended from time to time, (iv) the furnishing of electric current, materials, contracted services, and the necessary maintenance, replacement, and repair required to keep such improvements in operational and satisfactory condition; and (v) the establishment of a reserve fund for the replacement of any such improvements; and (b) the incidental expenses which will be incurred, including but not limited to: (i) all costs associated with the formation of the District, the determination of the amount of and collection of special taxes, the payment of special taxes, and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the District, and (ii) any other expenses incidental to the provision of the Services. On July 1 of each Fiscal Year, commencing on July 1, 2020, the dollar amount per EBU for Developed Property and the dollar amount per acre of Undeveloped Property shall be increased by a minimum of two percent (2%) to a maximum of six percent (6%), determined on an annual basis as needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement. Community Facilities District No. 2018-01 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA6MI�KI1T 26 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2018-01 (THE RESORT AT EMPIRE LAKES) LAND-USE EQUIVALENT TO EBUS Property Land Use Equivalent Benefit Unit Assigment Residential Property 1 EBU Per Residential Dwelling Unit Non-Residential Property 2 EBUs Per Parcel Less than 1 Acre Non Residential Property 2 EBUs Per Acre or portion of thereof More than 1 Acre The EBU assigment of each Assessor's Parcel of Mixed Use Property is equal the total of(i)the Assigned Special Tax that would be Applicable to Mixed Use Property Such Assessor's Parcel if it was classified only as Residential Property and (ii)the Assigned Special Tax that would be applicable to such Assessor's Parcel if it was classified as Non- Residential Property. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX Percentage Maximum Annual Fiscal Year Rate Property Description Special Tax 2019/20 0.00% Residential Property $318.84 Undeveloped Property $5,234.20 2020/21 6.00% Residential Property 337.97 Undeveloped Property 5,548.25 2021/22 6.00% Residential Property 358.25 Undeveloped Property 5,881.15 2022/23 3.00% Residential Property 369.00 Undeveloped Property 6,057.58 ACTUAL ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Property Land Use Actual Annual Special Tax Developed Property $369.00 Per EBU Undeveloped Property $1,592.51 Per Acre Community Facilities District No. 2018-01 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTAN 16gT 26 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2018-01 (THE RESORT AT EMPIRE LAKES) PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget Sources Taxes: Estimated Assessments, Net of Estimated Delinquencies $ 257,650 Interest Revenue 2,200 Transfers In 99,960 Total Proposed Sources 359,810 Uses Operation& Maintenance 11,370 Contract Services 19,170 Utilities 6,500 Assessment Administration 4,880 Transfer to Special Districts for Services and Facilites 116,940 Capital Reserves 99,960 Total Proposed Uses 258,820 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance $ 100,990 RESERVED FUNDS Operating Capital Total Reserve Reserve Reserve Estimated Reserve Fund Balance,June 30, 2022 $ 1,963 $ 174,138 $ 176,102 Contribution to/(Use of) Reserve-Fiscal Year 2022/23 (1,170) 102,160 100,990 Estimated Reserve Fund Balance, June 30, 2023 $ 793 $ 276,298 $ 277,092 Community Facilities District No. 2018-01 3 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA6MI61 26 -nn cn• o v City of Rancho Cucamonga i c < _CD Community Facilities District No. 2018-01 -, .< RANCHO ;= E i f L CUC_A, ,G, _ _ The Resort at Empire Lakes N o n � ■.■.■.■.■..i■u I.1■1■I■I■.■.■.■. .■.■..I_I_I■I■1■.F !I I■I■I.I■.■.■.....r....1■1■�I'.I'•se N.) j m ■ W 0 - j f N p Hillside Rd _ 1— CD CD ■ ■ �- — _ j N 'Q W !.I■I.Ifi .1 n 1 u ■ I IMI.+ o I Z Banyan St..s..* il.l.�.� N 4 b 19th St - � 21a -- —� i ;$ �15 Base Line Rd -'+' +liiL Base Line Rd I i ii Foothill BI e .+, 1 Foothill BI ■ It. rt 1 i Arrow Rt: - - i Arrow Rt i 8th tiuy.y■1■1■1■1_. i I ¢' v 6th S 7 to -1 _ Legend J , 4t1� Stli 1 .■...■.■.■1.t■4th 5t CFD 2018-41 C'so The roots.dam.and 1Roymphlo 11omntrwn(lawman')airollmr by and vmugn y 7 7 7 `t 7 rraak dotty or gawk8aamorrp ae plastron]as a pubic imu�a'rural Herrman.n. The O[y of Roam 6iaer mes ra irples ro warraty,represerzem v¢mmmrtee Q ,� .�1■ a m tre mndS ire,amiac•mrc anr$or nrtdlmss d any Infinrbn CO = L [p ■ partied m puler", 'fro nlald My upon it hram o 11 :I■d i City Limits rr) aid¢ darted la edeaerdently y.Ty as and a1 internment manna! hemp E . .� y..� The Cey d Radio r raniprga ryslimiy are amtlnut!Molar.disclaims any aid all {53 - dl03 reps ad i.rtantee. Ink dlry.bit rot Ilmltee lo,the Implied i.rtanbc L = d meidanhalq ad tries fora poonoor aui�e.The Oty of Pardo tuarrr.. = i 9J t Shed nor-er ao nor snore any IIrblity,rryard n mf the cola ilm for(I)am = ....7. Miles N onorn.crrtebu or Inammaca In am Infomaden prcdee adfrr III)any n i on LL CC inaction®nfip de m any perxre ielonor upon do rnkrnabcr,coiatle hadn 1 �.J 0 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAX FOR THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2022-01 (STREET LIGHING SERVICES) OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to the maintenance of certain improvements by the City, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of special tax to be collected for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District are hereby determined and established as set forth Annual Status Report to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by the Ordinance, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax shall be used, in whole or in part, for the following: A. Payment of costs and expenses of the operation, maintenance, and servicing of authorized services pursuant to the Act; B. Payment of an amount necessary to fund or replenish an operating or capital reserve for the District; and C. Payment of a proportionate share of Administrative Expenses as such term is defined in the Rate and Method. The proceeds of the special tax shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 1 of 2 Page 285 ATTACHMENT 27 SECTION 5: Special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of special tax and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to the District a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 201" day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 2 of 2 Page 286 ATTACHMENT 27 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2022-01 (STREET LIGHTING SERVICES) ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTA8M R17T 28 BACKGROUND On June 1, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2022-061, and established Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services) of Rancho Cucamonga, (the "District"). On June 1, 2022, the qualified electors of the District, being the owners of the land within the District, voted to approve the levy of a special tax to pay for certain public services and the administering of such District. On June 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1005 approving the levy of the special tax. The District was authorized to finance any services which may be funded with proceeds of the special tax of CFD No. 2022-01, authorized pursuant to Section 53313 of the Act, including but not limited to all costs attributable to maintaining and servicing street lights, traffic signals and appurtenant facilities throughout CFD No. 2022-01. Services include personnel, materials, contracting services, utilities, and all necessary costs associated with the maintenance, replacement, and repair required to keep the improvements in operational and satisfactory condition. In addition to payment of the cost and expense of the forgoing services, proceeds of the special tax may be expended to pay "Administrative Expenses," as said term is defined in the Rate and Method. of a reserve fund for the replacement of any such improvements; and On July 1 of each Fiscal Year, commencing on July 1, 2022, the Maximum Annual Special Tax set forth in the tables below shall be increased by a minimum of two percent (2%) to a maximum annual increase of six percent (6%), determined on the annual basis as needed to satisfy the Special Tax requirement. Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 c,c, 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA6MIkf 28 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2022-01 (STREET LIGHTING SERVICES) MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Tax Zone No. 1 -Arterials Property Land Use Maximum Special Tax Rate Single Family Residential Property $22.67 per Unit Multi-Family Residential Property $22.67 per Unit Non-Residential Property $45.34 per Acre Undeveloped Property $200.00 per Parcel Tax Zone No. 2 - Residential Local Streets Property Land Use Maximum Special Tax Rate Single Family Residential Property $75.17 per Unit Multi-Family Residential Property $75.17 per Unit Undeveloped Property $200.00 per Parcel Tax Zone No. 3 - Victoria Planned Community Property Land Use Maximum Special Tax Rate Single Family Residential Property $47.15 per Unit Multi-Family Residential Property $47.15 per Unit Non-Residential Property $94.30 per Are Undeveloped Property $200.00 per Parcel Tax Zone No. 4 - Terra Vista Planned Community Property Land Use Maximum Special Tax Rate Single Family Residential Property $28.96 per Unit Multi-Family Residential Property $28.96 per Unit Non-Residential Property $57.92 per Acre Undeveloped Property $200.00 per Parcel Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 2 I Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTAD 6I128 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2022-01 (STREET LIGHTING SERVICES) MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 (CONTINUED) Tax Zone No. 5 - Caryn Planned Community Property Land Use Maximum Special Tax Rate Single Family Residential Property $63.79 per Unit Undeveloped Property $200.00 per Parcel Tax Zone No. 6 - Commerical Industrial Property Land Use Maximum Special Tax Rate Non-Residential Property $51.40 per Acre Undeveloped Property $200.00 per Parcel Tax Zone No. 7 - North Etiwanda Property Land Use Maximum Special Tax Rate Single Family Residential Property $58.64 per Unit Multi-Family Residential Property $58.64 per Unit Non-Residential Property $117.28 per Acre Undeveloped Property $200.00 per Parcel Tax Zone No. 8 - South Etiwanda Property Land Use Maximum Special Tax Rate Single Family Residential Property $37.79 per Unit Multi-Family Residential Property $37.79 per Unit Non-Residential Property $75.58 per Acre Undeveloped Property $200.00 per Parcel Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 3 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA2 N IRP128 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2022-01 (STREET LIGHTING SERVICES) PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS No annual special tax levy for Fiscal Year 2022/23. Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 4 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA2 MENTT 28 71n cn. o v 3 City of Rancho Cucamonga m = ill < ro Q Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 Iy •-'► — na . C RANCHO �ut E a co Street Lighting Services N a1[drnotitr ■ ■ o 0 e ti _ _ _ f Tax Zones 1....1.r.1.1.r.1.•.t.r.r.r.a.r.r.1...r...,.r.ra.rsI rra.t ...r..• r.t.=utr•t co N ! ■Y i v.) ■ 0 Hillside Rd ' i .o -E U ! v ■ > Wilson Av N ;ice : AAA - - - �/. CD i Z TZ 1-Arterials North Etwanda •Banyan St 4 f • NO i i TZ•S-Canal • - •i -4�/� ' 19th StID, .- * Victoria ' Planned Community Etiwanda :- •Base Line Rd ! •--- v •i Base Line Rd i Terra Vista i Planned Community ; :' i TZ 2- Residential Foothill DI Ti 6-Commercial/Industrial :• • f,'� II Foothill BI ■ • • i II Arrow Rt Arrow Rt ji 11 ■ ■ 11 • 8th Sti._._,_;_._._ ! Legend j4_,�ii < City Limits >- Spa;IL - ii ii w Tax Zone No. 1 l9 4., e ■ Tax Zone No.218 it 4th St'._._._._._.,_._._.-_._. 4th St —I ¢' .< ¢ ¢' ¢ ¢' - Tax Zone No.3 —I The maps-darn,and geopraMIE IriomsfLn(•forum•)avadabe b,ant tlroup C !- p D/••�-a•t heCerdpa�aGmnogaaepm�Raasapwl[eau[ed general l/o uhtt. q: v ni a - Tax Zone No.4 J V The t' d Barrio C' ga mks nor Inca.rn wmrant,asRxrraum or gwmme E 7 Pmax mm e,sequence, ar,eoapme+a-w n tadFrev d any]rfornmbci _ v [4 m a d n>n ten. The n=< eti apm Um I� a reason m _ ' Tax Zone No.5 and.a anmd>o inxe�ar yervr arN and at mnamaa,pm�4L Feten = N u The City o'Rana tumnohgn ecpIetir am-.veto Irraanuh dmatms any and at Q = O ((j neenearaams and wa<.araos, trolwinp,nut roe Mr.t4 am mpm9 wen-al-Om - Tax Zane No. MQ d merdermtmY and ht=fora puttotlnr pupme.The 6q d Banco turarnmhpa than Miter a pt no-erm+ne mr ltetnw regards d the otteaa+F«(I)ow Miles - Tax Zone No.8 �\+ Ernesto.or rID¢vao.rh any Idornuaoo pro...ard�r CO am won or ranrn aaumny due toark perm.tee upon nre un me Intonation amiable en. 1.5j 0.75 0 1.5 N.) 03 o1 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAX FOR THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2022-01 (INDUSTRIAL AREA SERVICES) OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, (hereinafter referred to as the "legislative body of the local Agency"), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors relating to the levy of a special tax in a Community Facilities District, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982", being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code for the State of California. This Community Facilities District shall hereinafter be referred to as Community Facilities District No. 2022-02 (Industrial Area Services) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter referred to as the "District"); and WHEREAS, this legislative body, by Ordinance as authorized by Section 53340 of the Government Code of the State of California, has authorized the levy of a special tax to pay for costs and expenses related to the maintenance of certain improvements by the City, and this legislative body is desirous to establish the specific rate of the special tax to be collected for the fiscal year; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the specific rate and amount of special tax to be collected for Fiscal Year 2022/23 for the District are hereby determined and established as set forth Annual Status Report to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3: That the rate as set forth above does not exceed the amount as previously authorized by the Ordinance, and is not in excess of that as previously approved by the qualified electors of the District. SECTION 4: That the proceeds of the special tax shall be used, in whole or in part, for the following: A. Payment of costs and expenses of the operation, maintenance, and servicing of authorized services pursuant to the Act; B. Payment of an amount necessary to fund or replenish an operating or capital reserve for the District; and C. Payment of a proportionate share of Administrative Expenses as such term is defined in the Rate and Method. The proceeds of the special tax shall be used as set forth above, and shall not be used for any other purpose. SECTION 5: Special tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and same procedure and sale in cases of any delinquency for ad valorem taxes, and the Tax Collector is hereby authorized to deduct reasonable Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 1 of 2 Page 293 ATTACHMENT 29 administrative costs incurred in collecting any said special tax. SECTION 6: All monies above collected shall be paid into the District funds, including but not limited to, any special tax fund and reserve fund. SECTION 7: The County Auditor is hereby directed to enter in the next county assessment roll on which taxes will become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land effected in a space marked "public improvements, special tax", or by any other suitable designation, the installment of special tax and for the exact rate and amount of said tax, reference is made to the attached Annual Status Report. SECTION 8: The County Auditor shall then, at the close of the tax collection period, promptly render to the District a detailed report showing the amount and/or amounts of such special tax installments, interest, penalties, and percentages so collected and from what property collected, and also provide a statement of any percentages retained for the expense of making any such collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 201" day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX — Page 2 of 2 Page 294 ATTACHMENT 29 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2022-02 (INDUSTRIAL AREA SERVICES) ANNUAL STATUS REPORT J U LY 2022 ATTA8 RJ 1 30 BACKGROUND On June 1, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2022-062, and established Community Facilities District No. 2022-02 (Industrial Area Services) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, (the "District"). On June 1, 2022, the qualified electors of the District, being the owners of the land within the District, voted to approve the levy of a special tax to pay for certain public services and the administering of such District. On June 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1006 approving the levy of the special tax. The District was authorized to finance any services which may be funded with proceeds of the special tax of CFD No. 2022-02, authorized pursuant to Section 53313 of the Act, including but not limited to all costs attributed to maintaining and servicing landscape and tree maintenance, storm drain repair and maintenance, streets and roadway services, police safety calls and service, and creating a capital reserve account for any future industrial repairs and maintenance. In addition to payment of the cost and expense of the forgoing services, proceeds of the special tax may be expended to pay "Administrative Expenses" as said term is defined in the Rate and Method. On July 1 of each Fiscal Year, commencing on July 1, 2022, the Maximum Annual Special Tax set forth in the tables below shall be increased by a minimum of two percent (2%) to a maximum annual increase of six percent (6%), determined on the annual basis as needed to satisfy the Special Tax requirement. Community Facilities District No. 2022-02 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTAD I6RP1 30 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2022-02 INDUSTRIAL AREA SERVICES MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 Tax Zone No. 1 Property Land Use Maximum Special Tax Rate Industrial Property $5,852.00 per Acre Mixed Use Property $12,030 per Acre Accessory Dwelling Units $731.50 per ADU Undeveloped Property $200.00 per Parcel PROPOSED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS No annual special tax levy for Fiscal Year 2022/23. Community Facilities District No. 2022-02 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTANI6N7T 30 � n w o v r City of Rancho Cucamonga c : Community Facilities District No. 2022-02 ✓ RANCHO Industrial Area Services N -n cur_AmaNa. O ■.r.r._llta._trt_t_trr_h_tra rm. t!t t_trt_t_t_t■■ f �ruu�+.rrrr;t;Ir rsrrr wr wr Moan i. RI m,rlrlr.E.1 1 N n 1 �.t ■I.' ' . I j W CD rty 1 iI�f m 1 Jallai. ' dll LEI! 4 Q Q 4 1 C C M �p G ■ Z i Hillside Rd m SR j i �= co N 1 , =a V q7 = m Wilson Av ,�t�• N) r i Banyan St o • L >r- N i a -.1 - L 19th St 1 > a -. l� . a s' I _ ' R 15 Base Line Rd• — o° Ili �r V j ` Church Av f i i I ■ ■ Foothill BI �� • j? ¢ Ar-owRt rfr1 C 9 ■ ■ $th 5t ■ ■.I..rmrmrmI.‘ > r= Q jr.r.� -I lir 6th St ■ The mew,dots,and Peogrlent Idrs,rolLn('hdmrrda,')avadahr ty are tl-4 } V 4 — e CI:,d Pardo C -napa are pomaded rlc as a p !mamma den[general Ir*Em EEn. The ry of Pad o M rya make nor Imps Irma*,Irma ,rryexneatlm or guarani. 4 a nth St - Legend 0-0 E p to the oxr2rt.sequence sequencemrsp•,con-peerless or wellnesswellnessof arty Lhmex as to m)11 rva n. TIE user should not rely upon am lrfomrbn for am mason f.rt�t�t rt�t�t r.�.r.r.rul�l�l�l�l�l�l 1 �uuul�l rt� end is dyed.m IrwFFm tly nay am old el InforadIn prt>atrd Fen t�t� The Cta d Rmvn Cum nvnye cplttlp•ara a.tn.mead dEGane any and l ■ _/'+ �) reprexr.auora and txarrarcc, Irdldlny,bdt rr Mad to Me nrabd wmnare. City Limits d nvdarmtnn and threw Tor a Isrttubr pa-pme.TFc 6q d keno Cucamonga ��1�1■ col mete a pt ra are ne any!Min regard d ate mr� w cn"^f M Iles CFD 2Q2�-D2 volsdona or nmreou n any Infcrm.hm prodded erdfor CO any aottn or roam occur!,due to ear parsons reliance open tFe l �m.nnat n a. ae Felt .l-5 0.75 0 1-F Cu) o co RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE COST OF SERVICE TO BE FINANCED BY BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED IN DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 AND DETERMINING AND IMPOSING SUCH BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, previously undertook proceedings to authorize the levy and imposition of benefit assessments to pay for the annual drainage maintenance, including the removal of sediment and debris from the Day Canyon Channel improvements and basin, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Benefit Assessment Act of 1982", being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (commencing with Section 54703), said area of benefit being known and designated as Drainage Area No. 91-2 (the "Drainage Area"); and WHEREAS, at this time there has been presented to this City Council an annual Supplemental Report (the "Supplemental Report") to the Final Engineer's Report for the Drainage Area setting forth a description of the proposed service, cost estimate and assessment schedule for Fiscal Year 2022/23; and WHEREAS, at this time this City Council desires to determine the cost of providing authorized services to be financed by the levy of a benefit assessment for Fiscal Year 2022/23 and to determine and impose such benefit assessment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That the Supplemental Report is hereby approved and ordered to be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk as a permanent record and to remain open for public inspection. Said Supplemental Report generally consists of the following: A. A description of the service proposed to be financed through revenue derived through the levy and collection of the benefit assessment; B. A description of each lot or parcel of property proposed to be subject to the benefit assessment; and C. The amount of the proposed assessment for each parcel. SECTION 3: That the rate and method of apportionment of the benefit assessment as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report is hereby adopted and has been utilized as the rate and method of apportionment of the benefit assessment to be levied in Fiscal Year 2022/23. SECTION 4: That this City Council hereby determines and orders that the benefit assessments described in the Supplemental Report within the Drainage Area are hereby confirmed and levied for Fiscal Year 2022/23. SECTION 5: That the above confirmed and levied benefit assessment for Fiscal Year 2022/23 shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general County property taxes are collected and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of such County taxes shall be applicable to the collection and enforcement of these benefit assessments. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 1 of 2 Page 299 ATTACHMENT 31 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. Resolution No. 2022-XXX— Page 2 of 2 Page 300 ATTACHMENT 31 ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Lynne B. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tern Ryan A. Hutchison, Council Member Kristine D. Scott, Council Member CITY STAFF John R. Gillison, City Manager Lori E. Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer William Wittkopf, Public Works Director Noah Daniels, Finance Director J U LY 2022 ATTA8MI E3R11- 32 ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TABLE OF CONTENTS Engineer's Report Exhibit A - Description of Service Exhibit B - Cost Estimate Exhibit C - Assessment Schedule Map Benefit Assessment District No. 91-2 1 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTADNERIT 32 AGENCY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PROJECT: DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ANNUAL SUPPLEMENT TO FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT PURSUANT TO BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ACT OF 1982 This Annual Supplement to the Final Engineer's Report (the "Annual Supplement") for City of Rancho Cucamonga Drainage Area No. 91-2 is hereby submitted consisting of the following documents, pursuant to the provisions of the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982, being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 54703. This Annual Supplement is applicable for the ensuing 12-month period, being the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023. 1. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE (Exhibit "A"): A description of the service proposed to be financed through revenue derived from the levy and collection of the annual benefit assessment. 2. COST ESTIMATE (Exhibit "B"): A listing of all costs and expenses for the next fiscal year, including incidental expenses. 3. BENEFIT ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE (Exhibit "C"): The annual assessment schedule, setting forth the following: A. Annual Benefit Assessment: The amount of the proposed benefit assessment for each parcel. B. Description of Parcel: A description of each lot or parcel of property proposed to be subject to the benefit assessment, said parcel being described by the County Assessor's parcel number. No benefit assessments shall be imposed or levied upon land owned by a Federal or State governmental agency and/or any other local agency. Any utility property and Benefit Assessment District No. 91-2 2 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA8ME,zRI3f 32 right-of-way shall be subject to assessment only to the extent that it is specifically benefited from the proposed services. Reference is made to the Final Engineer's Report as incorporated in Resolution No. 91-331 for a description of the boundaries of the Drainage Area and each parcel therein and for the method of spreading the benefit assessment. Executed this 20th day of July 2022, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES/CITY ENGINEER ,, %()FESS-701 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �Q'PSON Wf�o'�� STATE OF CALIFORNIA A J, No.67514 Q 9l CIV1\- $ OF CAI\ ° By: Final approval, confirmation and levy of the annual benefit assessment and all matters in the Annual Supplement were made on the 20th day of July 2022, by adoption of Resolution No. by the City Council. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA A copy of said Assessment Roll and Annual Supplement was filed in the Office of the City Engineer and the City Clerk on the 20th day of July 2022. CITY CLERK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,,wESS/44, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0 7. No. 67514 * DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES/CITY ENGINEER qyF of I C Al �F��=\ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA Benefit Assessment District No. 91-2 3 ��-MI Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTAE�R1 T 32 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE The properties within Drainage Area No. 91-2 ("Drainage Area") are located within the boundaries of the Day Canyon Drainage Basin area. Protection of the properties within the Drainage Area from overland flows requires the construction of a 27+ acre-foot desilting basin and a 1,460+ linear foot concrete drainage channel. The channel improvements will intercept the overland flows prior to reaching the properties and carry the storm water runoff, sediment, trash, organic material and related debris to a desilting basin. Each year the sediment, trash, organic material and other related debris that accumulates in the desilting basin and channel must be removed and transported to an approved spoils site. The services proposed to be financed from the revenue derived from the levy and collections of the annual benefit assessment are as follows: A. Monthly on-site inspections of the desilting basin and channel. B. Bi-monthly weed abatement program for the desilting basin and channel. C. Removal of accumulated sediment, trash, organic material and other related debris from the desilting basin and channel to an approved spoils site. This service is expected to be provided annually. During times of excessive rainfall, this service may be required more frequently. Benefit Assessment District No. 91-2 4 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTA8M6RI�f 32 EXHIBIT B COST ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 A. Cost of Annual Maintenance Regular Salaries $13,360 Fringe Benefits 6,680 Subtotal 20,040 B. Incidental Expenses City Administration 1,300 Administration/General Overhead 2,770 Subtotal 4,070 C. Total Annual Costs 24,110 D. Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance 3,260 E. Balance to Assessment Property Taxes, net of estimated delinquencies 26,200 Interest Earnings 730 Delinquencies 440 $27,370 Benefit Assessment District No. 91-2 5 ��-tI Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTAE�RJ1 32 EXHIBIT C ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE WHEREAS, this City Council has previously, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Benefit Assessment Act of 1982", being Chapter 6.4, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 54703, formed Drainage Area No. 91-2 all in accordance with the provisions of said Act; and, WHEREAS, the Annual Supplement for Fiscal Year 2022/23 consisting of certain documentation (including the amount of the proposed assessment for each parcel, a description of the parcel and a description of the service proposed to be provided) has now been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, the Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer by virtue of the power vested pursuant to said Act and by order of the legislative body, hereby makes and recommends the following benefit assessment to cover the costs and expenses of the service proposed to be financed through the levy of assessments and revenue derived for the Fiscal Year 2022/23. Said costs and expenses are generally as follows: Personnel Salaries $20,040 Incidental Expenses 4,070 Total Costs 24,110 Contribution to/(Use of) Fund Balance 3,260 Balance to Assesment $27,370 I do hereby assess and apportion the total amount of the costs and expenses upon the several parcels of land within the area of benefit in proportion to the estimated benefits received and hereby further state as follows: A. The amount of benefit assessment imposed is specifically related to the benefit of the parcel, which will be derived from the provision of the service to be provided. B. The annual aggregate amount of the total benefit assessment does not exceed the estimated annual cost of providing the service. C. The revenue derived from the benefit assessment shall not be used to pay for the cost of any service other than the service for which the benefit assessment was levied. Benefit Assessment District No. 91-2 6 I Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTAD R1ZT 32 The assessment parcels herein refer to the County Assessment Roll for a description of the lots or parcels and said assessment roll shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels. The net amount to be assessed upon the lands has been spread and apportioned by formula as set forth in the Final Engineer's Report in accordance with the benefits received from each parcel and in my opinion, said costs and expenses have been apportioned in direct relationship to the benefits received from the maintenance works of improvement. In the opinion of the undersigned, the benefit assessments have been spread and apportioned in accordance with the benefits to be received from the proposed work and services. Dated: July 20, 2022 q,c, ESS/64,4 w DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES/CITY ENGINEER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 67514 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9/ civic.. of co.A° ASSESSMENT PARCEL PROPERTY AMOUNT OF NUMBER DESCRIPTION ASSESSMENT 1087-261-01 to 11 363 Residential Parcels $26,198 1087-271-01 to 42 1087-281-01 to 58 1087-291-01 to 20 1087-301-01 to 35 1087-311-01 to 38 1087-321-01 to 34 1087-331-01 to 61 1087-341-01 to 58 Total $26,198 Benefit Assessment District No. 91-2 znpt7 Fiscal Year 2022/23 ATTADNIENT 32 T! CO 2) CD_ �' a' City of Rancho Cucamonga D ,_ 2 in z I' Benefit Assessment District No. 91-2 NN RANCHO !� . - rt E it -c o _ < _ 1 '. Drainage Area ^) , M111.111.wlMwlrkMrMl.i.uuu1ri-11.MkM•MIMk.I.I: ■IMMIMl-IMuu.—.—.r..u,MME.,.l*k, 7 N j Ii - u Y ro W . - > i v C i rl Hillside Rd ! s. !u m 1 - I >. i b'diIcon Av r. i a • Z * S.I-+ o i Banyano co S r + F/, N ► ,• sa 19tf1 S# " 210- mr. 5 i qy Base Line Rd > LI L Base Line Rd �f r i I i i Foothill BI + i Foothill B1 • t 1 i Arrow Rt: ! Arrow Rt • 8tfl .#iu.—uuu1.1.6 i > #F► rlmk..r d I > cu P. • D o 6th 5 wis I • _ ; i I [w Legend DSt' ..._I_I_k_k_l_..k_._._1_._._i.,...,-,-,�I ._...u....k.l.4th St -. CTO 'heSt reps.Sala.aril pmsha hU.rnor n f'Idm-etke.1 walker ey mia urJa. > > Ole City of korem e.a3.norga ere emerged as a d m.(onreprn. Q . 4 > BAD 91-2 ln<oharkar renre.y, crnrr rererasp, anaw.a,m d m ire .Kma,oa 7, liminess d araC LAen.i... C C c y rs I �� „�9 ten. fr< n� �� > any ai vCity Limits no ad a, m IJy.iJ.n.r vs*arrr one err Iricrroa�r Rrc hear_., E aii y .� C i...� Tie Cty d fbw Gr rap emIIW!'wet rM1art wrAmlvn tllSsbFr¢my o all !b ,u mol,�rrial.an lam. Inournrq.Cat ret Inked m.me nndee r.a . = d rreir.nn6.Sr and fie,rot n.ertin...r Pine,.Th. City oi k to Cum.... V al = u Wink nether. or aurr MN any UM repardes or the fix to Sr.. = y p W !,1 o a ,: .corraa In ern,Mitre-MT. rt a.aa IU eery nor,err a W error, cc m e `l N.) CO ,orscOo.®erhg armInd rmmrm Ca ny ons na I e k,krmalen elegi ae r,en le - - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA tr-r- DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Robert Neiuber, Human Resources Director Lucy Alvarez Nunez, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Consideration to Adopt Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Teamsters Local 1932, Including Amending the Salary Schedule for the Fiscal Year 2022-23, and a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer-Paid Member Contributions to CaIPERS. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-110) and (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-111), Respectively. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a three-year memorandum of understanding between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Teamsters Local 1932, including amending the salary schedule for the fiscal year 2022-23, and a resolution modifying paying and reporting the value of employer-paid member contribution (EPMC) to CaIPERS. BACKGROUND: The City Council previously approved a two-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Teamsters Local 1932 (Teamsters), effective July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021. In March 2021, the parties met and conferred in good faith and agreed to extend the term of the MOU for one year ending June 30, 2022. In January 2022, the City and Teamsters began negotiations for the successor MOU. After meeting and conferring in good faith, the City and Teamsters came to a tentative agreement in June 2022. Teamsters voted to approve the negotiated terms on June 30, 2022. ANALYSIS: The parties agreed to a three-year memorandum of understanding, and agreed to: • 5% cost of living adjustment (COLA) effective the first full pay period in July 2022 and 2% COLA effective the first full pay period in July 2023. In addition, effective October 2023, the City will evaluate the current survey cities and meet and confer on any proposed changes to the survey cities. The parties also agreed to meet and confer regarding the salary survey in January 2024. A discussion will focus on any positions that are below market. Page 310 • Represented employees pay the remaining 3% of the employer-paid member contribution (EMPC) effective the first full period in October 2022. With the implementation of this change, all EPMC will be eliminated for this bargaining group; group members will then be paying the full employee share towards their CaIPERS pension benefit. • $125 per month increase towards medical insurance effective the second full pay period in December 2022 • $300 per month cash-in-lieu payment beginning in January 2023 for employees who opt out of medical insurance and meet ACA requirements • Replace annual performance review with a professional development plan and coaching sessions • Addition of Sick leave buyback and early retirement notification incentive; additional 40 hours of Bereavement Leave and Natal and Adoption Leave; addition of constructive receipt language for vacation buyback; direct deposit requirement for new employees. • Addition of Class "A" driver's license stipend • Addition of the City's ability to recover certain professional development costs upon separation under certain circumstances Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the three-year MOU between the City and Teamsters, including amending the salary schedule for the Fiscal Year 2022-23. In addition, staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution modifying paying and reporting the value of EPMC to CaIPERS for both the Teamsters and Rancho Cucamonga City Employee Association (RCCEA). Although EPMC modifications have been incorporated in the respective MOU's for both groups, they must also be adopted by Resolution in accordance with CaIPERS regulations. Upon approval of this agreement by the City Council, the MOU would be effective from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT: The negotiated MOU has a year one cost of $351,800, with an additional $511,690 in year two, and at least $517,690 in year three. The fiscal impact for year three may change based on the agreement to meet and confer in January 2024 regarding any positions that are below market. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the Council's core value of working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders, and intentionally embracing and anticipating the future by taking actions to further attract and retain an exceptional workforce. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Resolution Adopting Memorandum of Understanding and Salary Schedule Attachment 2 — Memorandum of Understanding Attachment 3—Teamsters Local 1932 Salary Schedule Attachment 4 — Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting EPMC Page 2 Page 311 RESOLUTION NO. 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932, INCLUDING AMENDING THE SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23. WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and the Teamsters Local 1932 have met and conferred pursuant to the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (California Government Code §3500, et seq.)with regard to terms and conditions of employment; and WHEREAS, representatives of the City and Teamsters Local 1932 have agreed upon and presented to this City Council a three-year Memorandum of Understanding effective July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has previously adopted salary resolutions establishing salary ranges, benefits, and other terms of employment for employees of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes that it is necessary from time to time to amend the salary resolution to accommodate changes in position titles, classifications salary ranges, benefits, and other terms of employment; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES that said Memorandum of understanding with the Teamsters Local 1932 is hereby approved and the City Manager is hereby authorized to sign said Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California to approve the attached salary schedules for Teamsters Local 1932 bargaining unit, effective July 4, 2022. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution No. 2022- Page 312 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932 2022 - 2025 ATTACHMENT 2 1 Page 313 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932 (Teamsters) SECTION 1: RECOGNITION The City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the Teamsters Local 1932 (Teamsters) as the recognized employee organization for City employees in the Maintenance Bargaining Unit, comprised of the following classifications: Maintenance Worker Senior Maintenance Worker Lead Maintenance Worker Lead Mechanic Mechanic Electrician Equipment Operator Signal and Lighting Technician Signal and Lighting Coordinator Inventory Specialist Maintenance Coordinator SECTION 2: COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT Effective the first full pay period in July 2022, all Teamsters covered employees will receive a 5% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). Effective the first full pay period in July 2023, all Teamsters covered employees will receive a 2% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). Effective January 2024, the City will meet and confer with Teamsters Local 1932 regarding the salary survey as described in Section 4. The discussion will focus on any positions that are below market. SECTION 3: SALARY STRUCTURE As of the effective date of the MOU, all employees will be assigned to salary ranges which are no less than 20% (40 salary code steps) below the control point and no more than 10% (20 salary code steps)above the control point. Actual salary within the range is determined by performance, achievement of goals and objectives, or for recent appointments, growth within the position. SECTION 4: SALARY SURVEY The City shall conduct a salary survey of labor market cities approximately six months before the start of new labor negotiations for the next MOU. Effective October 2023, the City will evaluate the current survey cities and meet and confer on any proposed changes to the survey cities. Subsequently, the City will conduct a compensation survey of all covered classifications using the City's current survey methodology (salary and salary plus medical and EPMC). Positions with four or less comparable positions shall be benchmarked to another Teamsters position. 2 Page 314 SECTION 5: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The annual performance review shall be replaced with a professional development plan and at least two (2) ongoing coaching check-ins a year. The City will form a committee of all bargaining groups who have agreed to change from an annual performance evaluation to an annual professional development plan effective July 1, 2022. The committee will review the form(s) and processes not defined here for employees and their supervisors to develop the annual plan. Training, as well as handouts, will be provided to employees and supervisors to assist with the professional development plan and yearly coaching conversations. The City will review the form(s) and process with this committee at least every three years to assure their usefulness for employees and supervisors. Teamsters Local 1932 covered employees on or starting a probationary period would be eligible to receive up to 5% through the term of their probationary period per the Personnel Rules, and would then be eligible for the merit increase in the next development plan cycle as long as the probationary period was completed before the end of November (ex. An employee whose probationary period ended in March through November would be eligible for the upcoming February increase. An employee whose probationary period ended December to February would have to wait for the following February for another increase.) Each November, employees and their supervisors will work together to develop the Professional Development Plan which must be completed by the employee and supervisor by the end of the second full week in December of every year. Plan Timeline: • First and second week of November— employees fill out their"My Action Plan." • Third and Fourth week of November -employees and supervisors work together on the Plan, and supervisors review the plans with their managers or who their department determines. • Remainder of November through second week of December — Supervisors finalize the Plan taking into account any input which their supervisors provided and go over the Plan with the employee before submittal. Upon submission of the completed Plan in December (as outlined in the timeline above), employees not at top step are eligible for a merit increase of 5% but no greater than top step. The change will be reflected in the first full pay period the following February. There is no retroactivity for plans where the employee portion is not timely submitted. If, due to unforeseen circumstances where the employee is unable to timely submit the employee portion, the City agrees to provide additional time and/or resources as is necessary. Employees on a performance improvement plan as of December will not be eligible for a merit increase. All performance improvement plans will be reviewed in November. The current performance evaluation system will end June 30, 2022, with any increase from then on being part of this new once a year system. If any employees below top step have overdue evaluations as of June 30, 2022, they will automatically receive a 5% merit increase for any outstanding evaluation backdated to when the evaluation was due. These automatic merit increases cannot exceed top step of the employee's salary ranges. 3 Page 315 SECTION 6: LIFE INSURANCE The City provides $30,000 base coverage of life insurance for all employees. Employees who want to purchase additional life insurance coverage with personal funds may do so at the City's group rate. SECTION 7: HEALTH INSURANCE A. Health Insurance Contribution Effective the first full pay period in July 2020, the City shall provide employee and family insurance for all existing full-time continuous salaried employees within the bargaining group, subject to limitation that no such monthly funding by the City shall exceed $1,175 per month. Effective the second full pay period in December 2022, the City contribution shall increase to $1,300 per month. B Cash In-Lieu Payment Beginning in 2023 represented employees may waive coverage under a City-paid medical insurance plan and receive a $300 per month cash-in-lieu payment if they meet ACA requirements. To be eligible, an employee must provide the following: (1) proof that the employee and all individuals for whom the employee intends to claim a personal exemption deduction for the taxable year or years that begin or end in or with the City's plan year to which the opt-out applies ("tax family"), have or will have minimum essential coverage through another source (other than coverage in the individual market, whether or not obtained through Covered California) for the plan year to which the opt- out arrangement applies ("opt-out period"); and (2) the employee must sign an attestation that the employee and his/her tax family have or will have such minimum essential coverage for the opt-out period. An employee must sign an attestation every plan year at open enrollment or within 30 days after the start of the plan year. The opt-out payment cannot be made, and the City will not, in fact, make payment if the employer knows that the employee or tax family member does not have such alternative coverage, or if conditions in this paragraph are not otherwise satisfied. C Affordable Care Act Reopener The Teamsters or City may reopen negotiations on the issue of health insurance benefits to address changes to or the elimination of the ACA and in order to avoid penalties or taxes under the ACA or other statutory scheme that may result from an interpretation of the ACA or other statutory scheme by the Internal Revenue Service or other federal agency (including, but not limited to, a revenue ruling, regulation or other guidance) or state agency, or a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction. These negotiations will not result in a reduction or increase in the amount the City provides for employee health coverage. 4 Page 316 SECTION 8: RETIREE MEDICAL Subject to the conditions stated below, effective upon a service or disability retirement from City service at or beyond age 55 with 10 consecutive years of City service at the time of retirement, retirees shall be eligible to 100% personally fund, without any City contribution, participation in a group health insurance program(s)which is making group health insurance available to the City's retirees. It is agreed and acknowledged by the parties to this MOU that no representation is or can be made by the City, that such group retiree health insurance is available, or if available, will remain available for any specific future period of time. If no such group health insurance is reasonably available, or if the private carrier(s) terminates such coverage as to the retiree group or any individual group member, the City shall have no obligation/duty to self-fund or otherwise provide insurance or replacement insurance. All premiums for the retiree and/or eligible dependents shall be borne by the retiree. The City shall advance and submit the necessary premiums to the carrier(s), subject to the retiree reimbursing the City not later than 30 calendar days after City payment of the premium. Failure to timely reimburse the City shall result in no further premium payments being made by the City, resulting in termination of insurance coverage. The City's duty to advance said premiums shall terminate at age 65 of the retiree, regardless of whether or not the retiree is eligible for Medicare. City shall advise the group carrier of the insured's status as a retiree. Coverage eligibility shall then be solely determined by the group insurance carrier(s). It is likely that premium rates for retirees and/or dependents shall be greater than rates for employees. Regardless, retirees shall pay 100% of said rates. If at any time, it is determined by any group health insurance carrier that the City is prohibited from seeking premium reimbursement from a retiree, City affiliation and retiree enrollment in said group insurance plan shall immediately terminate upon rendering of the insurance carrier's decision. In such case, no retiree shall seek reimbursement from the City for any prior premiums paid by the retiree to the City as and for premium reimbursement. SECTION 9: RETIREMENT BENEFIT Unit members who do not meet the definition of "new member" under the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) (those unit members shall be referred to as "classic members") are enrolled in either the CaIPERS retirement plan commonly referred to as the 2.5% at age 55 retirement plan ("Tier 1" and "Tier 2"), or in the 2% at age 55 retirement plan ("Tier 3") and shall be provided the benefits as described below: A. Tier 1 — Employees Hired before September 1, 2010 §21354.4 2.5% at 55 Full Formula §21574 4th Level 1959 Survivor §20042 1 Yr Final Compensation 5 Page 317 1. Effective July 4, 2011, the City pays the normal eight percent (8%) CaIPERS member contribution per resolution 11-063. 2. Effective July 11, 2016, employees shall pay five percent (5%) of their PERSable compensation towards the CaIPERS employer contribution per Resolution 15- 090. 3. Effective the first full pay period beginning in June 2019, or the first full pay period after ratification whichever is later, the City will pay three percent (3%) of the CaIPERS member contribution and employees shall continue to pay five percent (5%) of their PERSable compensation, however; the employee will pay the five percent (5%) of their PERSable compensation toward the CaIPERS member contribution. The City will adopt a resolution to reflect this change prior to the effective date. 4. Effective October 2022, employees shall pay the full eight percent (8%) of their PERSable compensation toward the CaIPERS member contribution. The City will adopt a resolution to reflect this change prior to the effective date. B. Tier 2 — Employees Hired Between September 1, 2010, and July 3, 2011 §21354.4 2.5% at 55 Full Formula §21574 4th Level 1959 Survivor §20042 1 Yr Final Compensation 1. Effective July 4, 2011, the City pays seven percent (7%) of the normal CaIPERS member contribution; employee pays one percentage point (1%) of the Cal PERS member contribution per Resolution 11-063. 2. Effective July 11, 2016, employees shall pay four percent (4%) of their PERSable compensation towards the CaIPERS employer contribution and one percent (1%) of their PERSable compensation towards the CaIPERS member contribution per Resolution 15-090. 3. Effective the first full pay period beginning in June 2019, or the first full pay period after ratification whichever is later, the City will pay three percent (3%) of the CaIPERS member contribution and employees shall move their four percent (4%) PERSable compensation currently paid toward the CaIPERS employer contribution to the CaIPERS member contribution for a total of five percent (5%) of their PERSable compensation toward the CaIPERS member contribution. The City will adopt a resolution to reflect this change prior to the effective date. 4. Effective October 2022, employees shall pay the full eight percent (8%) of their PERSable compensation toward the CaIPERS member contribution. The City will adopt a resolution to reflect this change prior to the effective date. C. Tier 3— Employees Hired on or after July 4, 2011 6 Page 318 §21354 2% @ 55 Full Formula §21574 4t" Level 1959 Survivor §20037 3 Yr Final Compensation 1. Effective July 4, 2011, the City pays six percent(6%) of the normal CaIPERS member contribution; employee pays one percentage point (1%) of the CaIPERS member contribution per Resolution 11-063. 2. Effective July 11, 2016, employees shall pay four percent (4%) of their PERSable compensation towards the CaIPERS employer contribution for a total of one percent (1%) of their PERSable compensation towards the CaIPERS member contribution and four percent (4%) of the CaIPERS employer contribution per Resolution 15-090. 3. Effective the first full pay period beginning June 2019, or the first full pay period after ratification whichever is later, the City will pay two percent (2%) of the CaIPERS member contribution and employees shall move their four percent (4%) PERSable compensation currently paid toward the CaIPERS employer contribution to the CaIPERS member contribution for a total of five percent (5%) of their PERSable compensation toward the CaIPERS member contribution. The City will adopt a resolution to reflect this change prior to the effective date. 4. Effective October 2022, employees shall pay the full seven percent (7%) of their PERSable compensation toward the CaIPERS member contribution. The City will adopt a resolution to reflect this change prior to the effective date. D. It is understood that all contributions paid by the employee as described in Parts A through C above shall be calculated based upon the full base salary of the employee, plus any additional PERSable compensation, and any Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC). E. The City pays EPMC for the various "Tiers" as outlined above and reports the value of EPMC payments as special compensation. The parties agree that to the extent permitted by law, this is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section 571(a)(1)(F)as Value of Employer-Paid Member Contributions. The parties also agree that the City has no additional obligation or costs should CaIPERS, the State or the IRS determine otherwise. The City adopted a resolution providing that all employee CaIPERS contributions shall be deducted on a pre-tax basis to the extent permitted by law or IRS regulation. All employee payments of the employer share are done pursuant to Government Code Section 20516(f). F. There shall be no sunset date to any provision in Section 35. G. The California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) —As it may from time to time exist, the PEPRA shall in its entirety be given full force and effect. Any provision in this MOU which contradicts any provision of the PEPRA shall be deemed null and void, with the contrary PEPRA provision(s) being given full force and effect. 7 Page 319 Therefore, no provision of PEPRA shall be deemed to impair any provision of this MOU. PEPRA includes, but is not limited to, the provisions described below: Unit members hired on and after January 1, 2013, deemed to be a "new member" as defined in Government Code §7522.04, shall individually pay an initial Member CaIPERS contribution rate of 50% of the normal cost rate for the Defined Benefit Plan in which said "new member" is enrolled, rounded to the nearest quarter of 1% or the current contribution rate of similarly situated employees, whichever is greater. Unit members who are "new members" and miscellaneous employees on and after January 1, 2013, shall be enrolled in the 2% @62 retirement formula (Govt. Code §7522.20). Unit members who are "new members" on and after January 1, 2013, shall have "final compensation" measured by the highest average annual "pensionable compensation" earned by the member during a period of at least 36 consecutive months (Section 7522.32), and their retirement benefits shall be calculated based on "pensionable compensation" (Section 7522.10) rather than "compensation earnable" (Section 20636). H. In addition, the City has adopted the PARS Retirement Enhancement Plan generally described as .5% (one-half percent) at 55 or at 60, depending upon the employee's hire date, for all miscellaneous employees hired on or prior to December 31, 2012. To be eligible, employees must be at least age 56, have ten (10) years of full-time continuous service and retire from the City. This benefit will be paid to qualified retirees in addition to any CaIPERS benefits to which they are entitled. Employer Paid Member Contribution (EPMC) 1. The effective date of this benefit shall be July 4, 2011 and shall apply to all miscellaneous employees. This benefit shall consist of paying 8% of the normal contributions as EPMC, and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for employees hired prior to September 1, 2010. This benefit shall consist of paying 7% of the normal contributions as EPMC, and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable (excluding Government Code Section 2063(c)(4)) as additional compensation for employees hired on or after September 1, 2010. This benefit shall consist of paying 6% of the normal contributions as EPMC, and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for employees hired on or after July 4, 2011. Payment of EPMC and reporting the value of EPMC on compensation earnable is on pay rate and special compensation except special compensation delineated in Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) which is the monetary value of EPMC on compensation earnable. 8 Page 320 2. Effective the first full pay period in June 2019: This benefit shall consist of paying 3% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for employees hired prior to September 1, 2010. This benefit shall consist of paying 3% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for employees hired prior to September 1, 2010 and before July 4, 2011. This benefit shall consist of paying 2% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for employees hired on or after July 4, 2011. 3. Effective October 2022: This benefit shall consist of paying zero percent (0%) of the normal contributions, eliminating EPMC for all tiers within this bargaining unit. SECTION 10: VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ASSOCIATION (VEBA) The City has established a Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA)through the California Government Voluntary Employee Benefit Association to assist employee with planning for future health care expenses. Employees are allowed a one-time election to opt into the plan. Represented employees shall be eligible to participate in the plan according to a schedule negotiated separately from this agreement. Contributions to the Plan shall be made as City contributions through a salary reduction arrangement. All contributions made on behalf of employees through such salary reduction arrangement are made on a pre-tax basis in accordance with IRS provision. No employer contributions are to be made to the plan. At the discretion of the applicable bargaining unit, contributions may be amended once per year provided that such amendment is permitted by IRS regulations and in conformity with the plan document. SECTION 11: DEFERRED COMPENSATION The City will match dollar for dollar up to $50 per month and 1% of base salary in deferred compensation for any Teamsters covered employee who pays up to $50 and 1% of base salary into deferred compensation through payroll deductions. For example: if an employee with a monthly salary of$4,000 puts $90 per month of the pay they earned into deferred compensation, then the City will match the amount, up to the$90 maximum, and pay$90 towards that employee's deferred compensation. Effective the first full pay period in July 2022, Deferred Compensation participation for new bargaining unit members shall be automatic with an opt-out option. 9 Page 321 SECTION 12: DENTAL INSURANCE The City shall provide a dental insurance plan for all full-time continuous salaried employees within the bargaining unit. SECTION 13: OPTICAL INSURANCE The City shall provide an optical insurance plan for all full-time continuous salaried employees within the bargaining unit. The City agrees to average the cost of optical insurance for all full-time continuous salaried employees within the bargaining unit. SECTION 14: PREMIUM ONLY PLAN UNDER SECTION 125 A. The City has implemented a Section 125 (premium only plan) that allows pre-tax payroll deductions for employee's contributions for health benefits. B. The City agrees to provide technical assistance (such as automatic payroll deduction, etc.) in the event employees within the bargaining unit decide to expand this benefit from a "premium only plan" to a "flexible spending account" provided that those participating pay all costs incurred in expanding and maintaining this program. SECTION 15: BEREAVEMENT LEAVE When a death occurs in the family of a full-time employee, the employee shall be granted up to 80 hours of bereavement leave with pay. A death certificate or other acceptable evidence may be required by the City Manager or designee before leave is allowed. Family members are defined as follows: employee's spouse or domestic partner, employee's parents, employee's grandparents, employee's children, employee's siblings, employee's grandchildren, employee's great-grandparents, employee's spouse or domestic partner's parents, employee's spouse or domestic partner's grandparents, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, employee's spouse or domestic partner's children, employee's spouse's grandchildren, employees spouse or domestic partner's great-grandchildren, employee's spouse or domestic partner's great-grandparents, or a blood relative residing with employee. The City Manager or designee shall approve such bereavement leave. (References to domestic partner refer to registered domestic partners, as defined by California Family Code Section 297.) Effective the first full pay period in July 2022, employees are eligible for an additional 40 hours of bereavement leave in addition to the currently provided 80 hours when the bereavement leave is related to the employee's spouse or domestic partner, employee's parents, employee's children, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or employee's siblings, employee's spouse or domestic partner's parents, employee's spouse or domestic partner's children, or a blood relative residing with the employee. The parties agree to review any usage concerns in January of 2023. SECTION 16: PERSONAL LEAVE Employees within the bargaining unit can use up to 40 hours of accrued sick leave, vacation, administrative leave or holiday time as personal leave. These 40 hours can be used incrementally (i.e., 1 hour, 1/2 hour) throughout the fiscal year. Use of this time is for situations requiring the employee's attention and addressing work-life balance issues. Personal Leave needs to be cleared with their supervisor when using this time. Personal leave can be taken after six months service. 10 Page 322 SECTION 17: VACATION All full-time employees within the bargaining unit shall, with continuous service, accrue working hours of vacation monthly according to the following schedule. Vacation can be taken after six months service. Length of Hours Accrued Annual Hours Service Per Pay Period Accrued In Years 1 3.077 80 2 3.461 90 3 3.846 100 4 4.230 110 5 4.615 120 6-8 5.000 130 9 5.384 140 10 5.769 150 11-13 6.153 160 14 6.538 170 15+ 6.923 180 SECTION 18: VACATION CAP Employees will be cashed out of vacation balances in excess of 1040 hours as follows: A. In the first year of the MOU, as this new cap is implemented, existing employees who at the end of the calendar year have vacation hours accrued that exceed 1040 hours will make an irrevocable decision before the end of the 2019 calendar year as to whether they want the overage distributed via cash or deferred compensation, or if they will maintain their current accrued vacation hours in excess of 1040 in a separate one-time bank, which will be treated as any other vacation. If the employee selects payment or distribution, the payment or distribution will occur in April of 2020. B. Beginning in 2020, any hours accrued over 1040 hours as of the end of each calendar year will be cashed out via check or deferred compensation. Employees will make an irrevocable decision by the end of the calendar year as to the cash-out method, and the payment or distribution will occur in April of the following calendar year. SECTION 19: VACATION BUYBACK Annually, any employee that wants to have the City buyback vacation hours shall make an irrevocable election to do so. The irrevocable election shall be submitted in writing to the City's Human Resources Department on or before December 15 and shall indicate the number of hours of vacation that the employee expects to earn in the following calendar year that the employee wants the City to buy back, with a minimum buyback of 20 hours up to a maximum of 160 hours. This buyback shall occur twice annually, in June/July (between the last payday in June and the first payday in July) and December (between the first and second payday of the month), and the employee must indicate the total amount of hours they want paid out in June /July and in December. Regardless of the number of hours requested to be cashed out at either time, the most the City can cash out is the number of hours accrued and available in that calendar year to 11 Page 323 date. Employees must maintain a minimum of 40 hours of accrued vacation subsequent to any payment of vacation buyback time. SECTION 20: SICK LEAVE All full-time employees shall, with continuous service, accrue 120 hours of sick leave annually. Sick leave accrual (10 hours/month), begins on the first day of employment and can be taken after ninety (90) days of service. A. Personal Sick Leave Employees can use sick leave for personal illness, injury, a health-related reason (such as the diagnosis, care of treatment of a health condition), or preventive care. B. Family Sick Leave Employees can use sick leave for the illness or injury of a health-related reason (such as a diagnosis, care or treatment of a health condition), or preventive care of a qualified family member. For the purpose of Family Sick Leave, a qualified member means the employee's child (includes any age or dependency status, or for whom the employee is a legal ward or stands in loco parentis), parent (includes person who stood in loco parentis of the employee as a child, parent-in-law, spouse, registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandparent-in-law, great-grandparent, great-grandparent-in-law, grandchild, great- grandchild, or sibling. C. Other Statutory Use Sick Leave can be used to cover an absence for an employee who is victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking to: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order or other court assistance to help ensure the health, safety, or welfare of the employee or their child(ren). (b) Obtain medical attention or psychological counseling; services form a shelter; program or crisis center; or participate in safety planning or other actions to increase safety. SECTION 21: SICK LEAVE BUYBACK AND EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE* Effective the first full pay period in July 2022, if employees within the bargaining unit terminate their city employment after 5 years of continuous service, the City will buy back 130 hours of sick time if they provide at least two weeks' written notice of their intent to separate. If employees provide an early notification of their intention to retire from the City, the City will pay employees for additional non-cumulative accrued sick leave hours in accordance with the schedule below. Notifications must be given in writing to Human Resources in the form of an irrevocable letter of resignation with intent to retire. 12 Page 324 • Notification of at least six months (180 calendar days*) — 75 hours additional sick leave buyback. • Notification of at least four months (120 calendar days*) — 50 hours additional sick leave buyback. • Notification of at least two months (60 calendar days*) — 20 hours additional sick leave buyback. *Employees must have leave available in order to be eligible for the additional buyback. Use of vacation and management leave during the time between the notification and the employee's retirement date will not be counted toward the required notification periods in the schedule above. SECTION 22: HOLIDAYS The City Offices shall observe the following fourteen (14) holidays. All full-time continuous salaried employees shall be compensated at their regular rate for these days. (1) July 4 Independence Day (2) First Monday of September Labor Day (3) November 11 Veteran's Day (4) Fourth Thursday of November Thanksgiving Day (5) Day Following Thanksgiving Floater (6) December 24 Day preceding Christmas (Floater) (7) December 25 Christmas Day (8) January 1 New Year's Day (9) Third Monday of January Martin Luther King's Birthday (10) Third Monday of February President's Day (11) Last Monday of May Memorial Day (12-14)Three discretionary days may be taken by employee at his/her convenience after six months service subject to approval of the department head. Days may not be carried over from one fiscal year to the next. Whenever a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed as a holiday. Whenever a holiday falls on a Friday or Saturday, the preceding Thursday shall be observed as the holiday. When a holiday combination occurs (Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc.) where two consecutive days are holidays and it would result in the City Hall being open to serve the public only 2 days during the week, only one of the holidays will be observed and the other holiday will become a floating holiday. For example, for Thanksgiving, Thursday will be observed as the regular holiday; however, Friday will become a floating holiday to be used at a later date. For Christmas, Wednesday will be observed as the regular holiday; however, Tuesday (the day preceding Christmas) will become a floating holiday to be used at a later date. In the instance of Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Year's, employees will have until June 30 to use those floating holidays accrued between Thanksgiving and New Year's. Also, those days will not accrue as floating holidays until the actual holiday has occurred. Each year the City will designate which days will be observed and which are floating holidays. Employees within the bargaining unit who are eligible to bank a holiday have until June 30 (end of fiscal year) to use the banked holiday earned from July 1 through April 30. Any holiday banked in May and June, employees have until September 30 to use the banked holiday. SECTION 23: HOLIDAY TIME The City agrees that employees within the bargaining unit who are assigned to work on a holiday, whether or not their regular shift assignment requires they work that day, are eligible for pay at 13 Page 325 time and one-half for working that day. This time and one-half may be taken as compensation or put in a compensatory time off bank, (in effect, compensating at double time and one-half). That rate of compensation is tallied as follows: the ten (10) hours compensation for the holiday, plus compensation at time and one-half for the hours actually worked. This payment at time and one- half abrogates the employee's right to that holiday. SECTION 24: PREMIUM HOLIDAY COMPENSATION Bargaining unit employees required as part of the regular work assignment to work on Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Independence Day or Thanksgiving Day, are allowed to observe the holiday on another day. Additionally, these employees who work on the aforementioned designated holidays may select to receive compensation on that holiday at time and one-half for the ten-hour shift or take a second holiday as time off at a later date. SECTION 25: HOLIDAY FACILITY CLOSURE During the term of this MOU, there will be Holiday Facility closures, and certain City facilities may close in conjunction with the Christmas and New Year's holidays. Closure dates for City facilities shall be determined by the City in order to balance the impact on public services. The City will strive to provide a schedule on Holiday Facility closures at least six months or more in advance of the closure. During a holiday closure, affected represented employees may take paid leave from holiday, compensatory time, vacation accruals, or use unpaid leave. When holiday closures are implemented by the City, Section 20's provision regarding consecutive holidays shall not apply. SECTION 26: NATAL AND ADOPTION LEAVE WITHOUT PAY A. With Pay Employees within the bargaining unit are granted up to 80 hours of natal and adoption leave with pay for the birth or adoption of a child, however, use of the 80 paid hours does not extend any time charged under FMLA or CFRA. Any paid time required beyond this initial 80 hours must be charged to sick leave, vacation, compensatory or floating holiday time. Effective the first full pay period in July 2022, employees are eligible for an additional 40 hours of paid Natal and Adoption leave for a total of 120 hours. This is part of and does not add to leave time allowed by Federal or State leaves. B. Without Pay The City shall provide employees within the bargaining unit up to four months natal and adoption leave for the birth or adoption of a child including the paid leave as outlined above; such leave shall be pursuant to the provisions of the California Pregnancy Disability Act ("PDA"; California Government Code Section12945), if applicable. The City's PDA policy is incorporated herein by reference. Employees on this leave of absence without pay beyond the four-month period will be responsible for the payment of medical, dental and optical premiums to keep the coverage in force during the leave of absence. 14 Page 326 SECTION 27: WORKERS COMPENSATION LEAVE Any employee within the bargaining unit covered herein who is receiving disability payments under the "Workers Compensation Act of California" for on-the-job injuries sustained while engaged in the performance of duties of any such City position, shall receive from the City during the first three months of such disability absence, payments in an amount equal to the difference between the disability payments received under Workers Compensation Act and employee's full salary. Such payments by the City should be made without any deduction from accrued sick leave benefits. The City's obligation for such payments shall commence on the first (1st) day of such disability absence. In the event the employee's disability absence should exceed three months, an employee shall be allowed to supplement the Workers Compensation benefit received under State law with available accrued sick leave, accrued vacation leave or accrued compensatory time. The total number of leave hours, along with the Workers Compensation benefit, shall not exceed the employee's base pay for each day of the leave. For this purpose, accrued leave hours can only be used in one-hour increments. SECTION 28: MILITARY LEAVE Employees within the bargaining unit required to serve military leave will be compensated pursuant to the Military and Veterans Code. Finance may require military pay information in order to calculate a qualified employee's pay. SECTION 29: MILITARY SERVICE BUY BACK Employees within the bargaining unit have the option for military service buyback at the employee's expense. SECTION 30: OVERTIME A. Maintenance Bargaining Unit The City agrees that employees within the bargaining unit who are, due to health and safety reasons, sent home to rest and to be available to work additional hours as a result of a storm or impending emergency situation and are not subsequently recalled to work, will be compensated for the hours not worked in that shift, due to them having been sent home, to bring the total hours to 10 worked in that shift. Employees within the bargaining unit who are subsequently recalled to work the storm or emergency situation will work no more than 12 consecutive hours, due to health and safety reasons. Any hours worked in excess of 10 in that 12-hour shift will be paid at time and one-half, regardless of the total number of compensated hours for that week. Employees within the bargaining unit, who have already worked forty (40) hours in a work week, may request time off in order to avoid payment of overtime. It is at the discretion of the supervisor to approve that request. B. Overtime Calculation For the purpose of overtime calculations, Vacation Leave, Holiday leave, and Comp Time shall be considered hours worked. Overtime is compensated at 1.5 times the employee's 15 Page 327 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regular rate of pay. Only hours worked as defined here shall be considered for the purpose of calculating the FLSA overtime pay. SECTION 31: COMPENSATORY TIME Employees may choose to earn compensatory time (comp time or CTO) in lieu of payment for overtime, if approved by a supervisor, in accordance with the following provisions: 1. HHW/Used Oil Program Comp Time: A. Employees can request and be approved for comp time for work at the HHWF facility if they code their timecard to the appropriate HHWF account number(see Finance for directions). Comp time earned for working at the HHWF must be exhausted first as the employee uses comp time. Use of this HHWF comp time must also be properly coded on the employee's time card (see Finance for directions). The maximum amount of comp time that an employee may accrue pursuant to this section is 80 hours. Employees will be paid out by the last pay period in June for all HHWF comp time unused as of June 1 of each year; they will be paid out by the last pay period in December for all HHWF comp time unused as of December 1. No comp time pursuant to this section may be accrued in December of any calendar year. B. Employees working at the HHW and being paid out of the Used Oil Recycling Program overtime account can only receive overtime payments for that work. 2. All other Comp Time: An employee that works overtime between January 1 — November 30 of each calendar year may decide to accrue compensatory time off (CTO) at 1.5 times the number of overtime hours worked instead of receiving immediate payment for overtime worked. The maximum CTO that an employee may accrue is 150 hours. Once an employee reaches that accrual cap, all additional overtime worked in that calendar year shall be paid. Employees may use CTO as time off during the calendar year, subject to supervisor approval. Supervisors shall not unreasonably withhold approval for use of accrued CTO, and the need to replace the employee using CTO with another employee on overtime shall not be the basis for denying a requested use of CTO. Any CTO that is earned between January 1-November 30 of a calendar year that is not used as time off before November 30, minus any comp time the employee plans to use during the holiday closure dates in that same year, shall be cashed out with the last paycheck distributed in the calendar year. Overtime worked during December of a calendar year shall not be eligible for CTO. SECTION 32: ON-CALL PAY On-call assignments and requirements for employees assigned to being on call will be determined by the Department Head or designee(s). Employees within the bargaining unit required to be on- call shall be compensated at the rate of $275.00 per week. On-Call employees who field calls, dispatch other employees, or do other work directly related to being on call should report hours worked to the closest 1/4 hour on their timecard. 16 Page 328 SECTION 33: CALL BACK PAY (non-exempt) A. If an employee is required to be called back to work after completing his or her normal shift or after having left City premises or the employee's work location, the employee shall be compensated at the appropriate rate for each hour worked on call back with a minimum of two (2) hours call back compensation at the appropriate rate, regardless of whether the employee actually works less than two (2) hours. This provision shall be applicable to employees although the employee's regular work week is not completed but shall not apply to employees who are continuing on duty for their normal work shift. The time starts when the callback call is received by the employee. Employees must arrive at the worksite and perform the work required in order to receive call-back pay. B. When an employee is called on his/her day off or after hours for work purposes, the employee shall be compensated at the overtime rate or in comp time for the actual time worked, rounded to the nearest quarter hour (.25). SECTION 34: ACTING PAY/OUT OF CLASS PAY Acting Pay/Out of Class Pay will take effect for Teamsters bargaining unit employees who assume responsibilities of a higher-level classification after 120 working hours at the higher-level classification within a 30 calendar day period. SECTION 35: CALIFORNIA CLASS "A" DRIVER LICENSE STIPEND Employees required by the City to hold a valid Class "A" Driver's License for their position and participate in Department of Transportation (DOT) random drug and alcohol testing shall receive a stipend of$75 per month ($34.61 per pay period.) The Department will provide and maintain a list of positions and employees in those required positions. The list will be available upon request. SECTION 36: BILINGUAL PAY Employees within the bargaining unit who qualify for bilingual pay will be provided $50.00 per month. SECTION 37: SAFETY FOOTWEAR AND UNIFORMS The City will provide up to $355.00 annually toward the purchase and/or replacement of safety footwear as needed, at a City-designated vendor for employees required to wear safety footwear in the performance of their job duties. The $355.00 shall also be available to purchase footwear- related accessories including laces, socks, orthotics, or sole inserts. There shall be no change in the current voucher method of funding these footwear items/accessories. The City may provide uniforms (including shirts) and/or maintenance of uniforms for all positions covered under this MOU. The City reports CaIPERS on an annual basis, the actual value of compensation paid or the monetary value for the purchase, rental and/or maintenance of required clothing for Teamsters covered CaIPERS' Classic Members. The parties analyzed the value and determined it shall not exceed $710.00 per fiscal year. The parties agree that to the extent permitted by law, this is special compensation and shall be reported as such pursuant to Title 2CCR, Section 571(a)(5) 17 Page 329 Statutory Items. The parties also agree that the City has no additional obligation or costs should CaIPERS, the State or the IRS determine otherwise. SECTION 38: TUITION REIMBURSEMENT FOR APPROVED COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY COURSES Reimbursements by the City of the following enumerated college and/or university course expenses shall not exceed two thousand three hundred dollars ($2,300.00)during any fiscal year. Eligibility for said reimbursement in an amount not to exceed $2,300.00 in any one fiscal year shall be contingent upon a determination by the employee's department head or his designee that all the following conditions precedent exists: A. Expenses shall be incurred for coursework undertaken at a college or university that is licensed/accredited by one of the six regional accreditors involved in higher education accreditation in the United States. B. The applicant for reimbursement shall represent to the Human Resources Department documentation prepared by the accredited/licensed college or university which evidences the applicant's receipt of a grade "C" or"pass" in a pass/fail class. As regards each class for which reimbursement is sought (where an employee is simultaneously enrolled in multiple approved classes and does not receive a "C" or"pass" in any one or more of such classes, the amount of expenses subject to City's reimbursement shall be reduced and/or as appropriate, pro-rated to reflect no reimbursement being made for expenses related to classes where the minimal grade was not received). C. Eligibility for reimbursement for said expenses shall be confined to either: 1) those courses that in and of themselves consist of curriculum which is predominately related to the development of skills reasonably anticipated by the City to enhance the applicant's job performance (by means of a non-inclusive example only, art classes would not qualify for reimbursement); or 2)where the employee has declared a major that is job-related as set forth in this section C, to those classes which must be completed as a condition precedent to successful completion of the course of study in the selected major. D. Eligibility for reimbursement upon completion of coursework shall be predicated upon the employee's department head or his designee, making a written determination prior to the affected employee's enrollment in the course(s) for which reimbursement is later sought, that the coursework is offered by an accredited college or university and that the above- described job nexus does exist. The determination of the Department Head or his designee in such regards shall be final. E. The costs which shall be subject to reimbursement are limited to the following: 1) tuition; 2) books; 3) supplies; 4) parking; and 5) laboratory. In addition to all other conditions precedent to reimbursement set forth in this section, prior to reimbursement being approved, written receipts shall be provided to the Personnel Department and shall evidence each expenditure for which reimbursement is sought. SECTION 39: ENCOURAGING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Promotions are movements to a different classification with a higher pay range. Bargaining unit employees are encouraged to seek regular performance feedback from their direct supervisors 18 Page 330 and other Department leadership for professional development and in order to prepare to compete for future promotional opportunities. If a member applies for a promotion to a bargaining unit position and is not selected for an interview, or has an interview but is not selected for the job, the employee is encouraged to request feedback from their supervisor as to the reasons why they were not selected. The supervisor will work with other Department personnel and/or Human Resources to provide a response to the requesting employee within 30 days of the request. Bargaining unit employees are encouraged to register on the City's employment portal to be informed of promotional opportunities by email, and to check their City email account regularly for information regarding promotional opportunities. SECTION 40: RECOVERY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS The City may pay the cost of training and certificate programs, up to $10,000, for individual employees that are not required to maintain their positions, with the goal of providing additional development opportunities for employees. Employees can request that the City pay the cost of such training and certifications. The Department Director and/or Deputy City Manager, with the approval of the City Manager, may approve these requests, subject to budget availability. If an employee requests participation in a training or certificate program with a registration cost of $2,000 or more, the employee will be required to repay the cost of that training or certificate if they leave City employment within 4 years of the registration for that program. One-quarter of the amount owed is forgiven each year. The employee must sign an agreement indicating that any outstanding amount can be deducted from their final paycheck upon separation any outstanding amount is due at separation. This benefit does not pertain to professional conferences related to an employee's ongoing continuous learning, which are routinely budgeted within a department's budget. SECTION 41: REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS AND RECERTIFICATIONS The City will pay for the cost of any required certifications or recertifications required of employees to maintain their positions. Required certifications must be outlined in an employee's classification specification. The Department Director, with the approval of the City Manager, can add to, but not eliminate certifications and recertifications that Departments will cover the costs for employees to maintain. Any additions by the Department Head must be applied equally to all employees in that classification. SECTION 42: DIRECT DEPOSIT All new bargaining unit members are required to enroll in direct deposit. Vacation buybacks can be by paper check. SECTION 43: 4/10 WORK WEEK The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Hall operates on a 4/10 work week, hours 7am to 6pm, Monday through Thursday. Different bargaining unit employees generally work from 6am to 19 Page 331 4:30pm with half-hour lunch. Actual days and times of work vary based on the hours of operations at various facilities employees are assigned to. SECTION 44: CARPOOL PROGRAM The City has implemented a well-defined, equitable, carpool program that eliminated the previously provided time-off incentive with a financial incentive. The carpool program is open to all full-time regular employees. Participation is voluntary, and employees interested in participating shall file a Rideshare Application Agreement and comply with the requirements of the program. The financial incentive for the program is $2.10 per day for every day that the bargaining unit employee carpools. SECTION 45: USE OF BULLETIN BOARDS The City will furnish a portion of existing bulletin board space, located in bargaining unit break areas where such bulletin boards currently exist for Teamsters notices. Such space will be no less than 18" x 24" depending on available space. Bulletin boards shall only be used for the following notices: • Schedule Teamsters meetings, agendas and minutes • Information on Teamsters election and the results • Information regarding Teamsters social, recreational and related news bulletins • Reports of official business of Teamsters, including negotiations, reports of committees or the Board of Directors City equipment, materials, or supplies shall not be used for the preparation, reproduction, or distribution of notices, nor shall such notices be prepared by City employees during their regular work time. Notices that are posted, distributed or placed in an employee's City mailbox shall not be obscene, defamatory or of a political nature. All notices to be posted must be dated and signed by an authorized representative of Teamsters. SECTION 46: ACCESS TO WORK LOCATIONS The parties recognize and agree that in order to maintain good employee relations; it is necessary for Labor Relations Representatives and designated Shop Stewards of Teamsters to confer with bargaining unit employees during work hours. Therefore, Teamsters Labor Relations Representatives or Shop Stewards will be granted access to work locations during regular working hours to investigate and process grievances or appeals. Teamsters Labor Relations Representatives or Shop Stewards shall be granted access upon obtaining advance authorization from the designated management representative prior to entering a work location and after advising the City at least one business day in advance of the requested access, of the general nature of the business. The designated management representative may deny access or terminate access to work locations if, in their judgment, it is deemed that the visit would interfere with the efficiency, safety, or security of City operations. The designated management representative shall not unreasonably withhold timely access to work locations. The City shall ensure that there is at all times someone designated who shall have full authority to approve access. If a request is denied, the designated management representative shall establish a mutually agreeable time for access to the employee. Teamsters Labor Relations Representatives or Shop Stewards granted access to work locations shall limit such visits to a reasonable period of time, taking into consideration the nature of the grievance or appeal. The City shall not 20 Page 332 unreasonably interfere with Teamsters' access rights to work locations and any reasonable denial of access shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. SECTION 47: DUES DEDUCTION Teamsters membership dues and insurance premiums for plans sponsored by Teamsters, provided such plans are not intended to replace City provided health plans, shall be deducted by the City upon notification by Teamsters stating that an employee has requested that such deduction be made, and the City will stop deductions upon notification from Teamsters that an employee has requested that such deductions be ceased. Remittance of the aggregate amount of all membership dues deducted from the pay warrants of employees covered hereby shall be made to Teamsters on a regular basis consistent with the City's regular pay-periods. Teamsters shall be deducted in an amount per bi-weekly pay period authorized by the Teamsters Board of Directors. The City shall not be liable to Teamsters, employees, or any party by reason of the requirements of this Article for the remittance of any sum other than those constituting actual deductions made from employee wages earned. Teamsters shall hold the City harmless for any and all claims, demands, suits, orders, judgments or other forms of liability that may arise out of or by reason of action taken by the City under this Article. SECTION 48: NEW EMPLOYEE ORIENTATION City shall provide thirty(30)minutes at a mutually agreeable time during the employee onboarding process for a Teamsters Local 1932 representative to meet with a new Teamsters Local 1932 covered employee and present the benefits of being a member of the Union. Onboarding new employees occurs during the first working day at the start of a new pay period up to 26 times per year. The City will provide a calendar before the start of a new year. A Teamsters Local 1932 representative will have up to 30 minutes of uninterrupted time to meet with new Teamsters Local 1932 covered employees. Prior to meeting, or in no case later than the meeting time, the City will provide the name and job assignment of the new employee to the Teamsters Local 1932 representative. The City will provide designated Teamsters Local 1932 representatives with all available information about the employee as required under AB 119 within 30 days of the employee's start date and the City will provide the required information on all Teamsters Local 1932 covered employees again as required by AB 119 at least three (3) times per year. SECTION 49: USE OF CITY RESOURCES Teamsters may be granted permission to use any City facilities accessible to the general public for meeting purposes, during the regular hours such space is accessible to the public, provided space for such meetings can be made available without interfering with City needs and is otherwise not reserved by any other groups or individuals. Teamsters may also be permitted to use the City Council Chambers, during regular business hours, for Teamsters meetings, provided the City Council Chambers is not otherwise reserved. Permission to use City facilities must be obtained by Teamsters from the appropriate management representative. Teamsters shall be held fully responsible for any damages to, and the security of, any City facilities that are used by Teamsters. SECTION 50: RELEASE TIME FOR CITY UNION STEWARDS The City and Teamsters Local 1932 also agree to the following release time for City Union Stewards: 21 Page 333 a. Release of one (1) steward for up to 3 hours each month for the Unions Local Wide Stewards Meeting. b. Release of one (1) steward for a full day each month if elected to the Union's Executive Board. c. Release of up to two (2) stewards for training for up to a full day of training as Stewards no more than once a fiscal year (July to June). The release of stewards as outlined above shall be paid by the City. Release may be denied if a supervisor/manager determines the employee is needed for a crucial assignment or the need for emergency staffing condition exists. Release per this section will not be unreasonably denied. SECTION 51: RELEASE FOR ALL HANDS MEETING The Teamsters Local 1932 bargaining unit shall be allowed four (4) ninety (90) minutes per fiscal year, including travel time, during work hours for the purpose of labor negotiations with the City. Additional meetings may be requested and may be granted by the Director of Public Works. SECTION 52: DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES A. Definition and Objective of Discipline Discipline is the enforcement of policies, rules, regulations and/or other administrative or legal requirements designed to maintain a standard of cooperation and conduct necessary to successfully carry out the mission of the City organization. The purpose of discipline is to assist the employee in recognizing and correcting any behavior or deficiencies regarding performance. Self-discipline or self-conformity is the goal strived for by this Section. Disciplinary action of classified employees who have attained regular status, when necessary, shall be documented in such a manner as to be defensible on appeal and/or review. In all instances where disciplinary action is contemplated, the affected employee shall be afforded prior notice of the proposed disciplinary action. The employee shall have reasonable opportunity to present, in person, their review of the incident(s) resulting in the disciplinary consideration. Types of disciplinary actions applicable to regular employees in the classified service are: dismissal, disciplinary demotion, reduction in pay steps within a pay range, disciplinary suspension,written reprimand, or an appropriate combination of these disciplinary actions. The aforementioned types of disciplinary actions are defined as follows: 1. Oral Reprimand: An oral consultation between the supervisor and employee whereby the supervisor indicates to the employee that there is cause for dissatisfaction with the employee's services and that further disciplinary measures may be taken if improvement is not made. An oral reprimand may not be appealed under this rule. 2. Written Reprimand: An official notification in writing by the supervisor to the employee that there is cause for dissatisfaction with the employee's services and that further disciplinary measures may be taken if improvement is not made. A written reprimand may not be appealed under this rule. 22 Page 334 3. Disciplinary Suspension: The temporary separation from City service of an employee without compensation. A suspension of less than four (4) days may not be appealed under this rule. 4. Reduction in Pay: The reduction of the employee's pay rate within the pay range established for the employee's class. 5. Disciplinary Demotion: The demotion of an employee from a position in one class to a position in another class having a lower maximum rate of pay. The demotion may be permanent or temporary. 6. Dismissal: The discharge of an employee from the City service. B. Disciplinary Procedures The purpose of the Disciplinary Procedures is to afford the regular employee an opportunity to present his/her view of factual situation leading to the proposed disciplinary action of suspension of four(4)or more days, reduction in pay, demotion or dismissal, and to afford appropriate administrative review of any disciplinary action which is taken. 1. Initial Notice: The employee shall be given written notice of the proposed disciplinary action by the division manager. The notice shall be delivered to the employee in person and/or mailed to the employee's last known residence by certified mail, return receipt, postage prepaid. Such notice shall include: a. The level of discipline intended to be imposed; b. The specific charges upon which the intended discipline is based; c. A summary of the facts upon which the charges are based; d. A copy of all written materials, reports or documents upon which the intended discipline is based; e. Notice of the employee's right to respond to the department head regarding the charges within five (5) calendar days from the date the notice of the proposed disciplinary action is sent or delivered to the employee, either by requesting an informal conference, by providing a written response, or both; f. Notice of the employee's right to have a representative of his or her choice at the informal conference, should he or she choose to respond orally; and g. Notice that the failure to respond at the time specified shall constitute a waiver of the right to respond prior to the imposition of discipline. 2. Right to Respond: The employee has five (5) calendar days from the date the notice of the proposed disciplinary action is sent or delivered to the employee to review the 23 Page 335 documents, materials, charges and other evidence presented pursuant to Section 2, subsection 2 above, and to respond either orally and/or in writing to the department head. If the employee requests a conference to respond orally to the proposed disciplinary action, the conference must be scheduled at least seven (7)calendar days after the date the notice of proposed disciplinary action is sent or delivered to the employee. The conference will be an informal meeting with the department head. 3. Right to Representation: The affected employee has the right to be represented during the disciplinary procedure, at the employee's own expense. 4. Further Investigation: If the department head determines that the employee's version of the facts creates doubt as to the accuracy of the information provided, the department head will initiate a further investigation of the factual situation leading to the proposed disciplinary action. 5. Implementation of Disciplinary Action: Upon completion of the procedures set forth above, the employee shall be given written notice of the disciplinary action by the department head. The notice shall be delivered to the employee in person and/or mailed to the employee's last known residence by certified mail, return receipt, postage prepaid. Such notice shall include: a. The level of discipline, if any, to be imposed and the effective date of the discipline; b. The specific charges upon which the discipline is based; c. A summary of the facts upon which the charges are based; d. A copy of all written materials, reports or documents upon which the discipline is based; and e. A statement of the nature of the employee's right to appeal. C. Discipline Authority: Department heads shall have the power and duty to determine the need for disciplinary action and implement disciplinary actions. 1. Informal Discussion: Though not a disciplinary action, when a minor job performance problem develops, an informal discussion shall usually occur to assist the employee in clarifying and remedying the problem. An informal discussion is designed to clarify standards, policies and procedures, and/or rules and regulations so that problems are resolved early, and the need to utilize disciplinary action may be avoided. 2. Oral or Written Reprimand: A supervisor may reprimand a subordinate for cause. When deemed appropriate, reprimands shall be in writing and be addressed to the employee. The employee will be directed to acknowledge receipt by signing the document. A signed copy shall be forwarded to the Human Resources Department for placement in the employee's file. Reprimands cannot be appealed. The employee may write a written response that must be received by the Administrative Services Department within eight (8) working days from the date the notice is sent or delivered to the employee, to be placed in the personnel file with the reprimand. 24 Page 336 3. Suspension: A regular employee may be suspended without pay by the department head. Before the effective date for any non-emergency suspension of four(4)or more days, the employee will be furnished with written notice pursuant to Section 2 of this Rule, and be given an opportunity to respond. Suspensions of less than four(4) days cannot be appealed. The employee may write a written response which must be received by the Human Resources Department within eight (8)working days from the date the notice is sent or delivered to the employee, to be placed in the employee's personnel file along with the Notice of Suspension. 4. Reduction in Pay: A department head may reduce an employee's pay within the range. Before the effective date of said reduction, the employee shall be furnished with written notice pursuant to Section 2 of this Rule, and be given an opportunity to respond. The employee shall be assigned a new anniversary date for merit review purposes. Such date shall coincide with the effective date of the reduction action. 5. Demotion: A department head may demote an employee to a lower class for disciplinary reasons. Before the effective date of the demotion, the employee shall be furnished with written notice pursuant to Section 2 of this Rule, and be given an opportunity to respond. The demoted employee shall be assigned a new anniversary date for merit review purposes. Such date shall coincide with the effective date of the demotion. 6. Dismissal: A department head may terminate a regular employee for cause pursuant to Section 2 of this Rule. Before the effective date of the dismissal, the department head shall provide the terminated employee with a written notice pursuant to Section 2 of this Rule and give the employee an opportunity to respond. D. Emergency Situations An Emergency may be temporarily placed on administrative leave from City Services with or without pay for a period of time not to exceed time reasonably necessary to permit an investigation of a matter which may result in a disciplinary action. Any employee having supervisory authority and responsibility may initiate an emergency suspension with pay. Suspension without pay must be initiated by the department head. In the event the investigation develops in the employee's favor and no disciplinary is filed within the suspension period, the employee shall be reinstated to duty with all accrued salary and other benefits. E. Grounds for Disciplinary Action The following non-exclusive list shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action (any of them may be sufficient cause upon which to base a disciplinary action): 1. Fraud in securing employment or making a materially false statement on an application for employment or on any supporting documents furnished with or made a part of any application. 2. Incompetency, such as failure to comply with a minimum standard for an employee's position for a significant period of time. 25 Page 337 3. Neglect of duty, such as failure to perform the duties required of an employee's position. 4. Willful disobedience or insubordination; such as willful failure to carry out the direction of a supervisor or failure to conform to established orders or directions of persons in a supervisory position, insulting or demeaning the authority of a supervisor or manager. 5. Dishonesty; making any false statement, omission or misrepresentation of material facts. 6. Being under the influence of alcohol or intoxicating drugs while on duty. 7. Absence without authorized leave. 8. Conviction of a crime or conduct constituting a violation of State law or Federal law that has a relationship to the employee's job. Conviction shall include a plea of guilty or no contest. 9. Discourteous treatment of the public or other City employees. 10. Improper or unauthorized use of City property. 11. Theft. 12. Violation of the rules and regulations of any department. 13. Refusal or failure to subscribe to any oath or affirmation, which is required by law in connection with City employment. 14. Any act of conduct undertaken which, either during or outside of duty hours, is of such a nature that it causes discredit to fail upon the City, and/or the employee's department or division. 15. Failure to maintain proper decorum during work hours. 16. Abuse of sick leave. 17. Inattention to duty, tardiness, indolence, carelessness or negligence in the care and handling of City property. 18. Outside employment which conflicts with the employee's position and is not specifically authorized by the appointing authority. 19. Acceptance from any source of any employment a reward, gift or other form of remuneration in addition to the employee's regular compensation as a personal benefit to the employee for actions performed in the normal course of the employee's assigned duties. 26 Page 338 20. Mishandling of public funds. 21. Excessive absenteeism or tardiness. 22. Working overtime without prior authorization; refusing to work assigned overtime. 23. Falsification of any City report or record, or of any report or record required to be completed by the employee. 24. Violation of the City or department's confidentiality policies; disclosure of confidential City information to any unauthorized person or entity. 25. Violation of the City's Policy Against Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation. 26. Violation of any of the provisions of the Municipal Code, lawful ordinances, resolutions, or any rules, regulations or policies which may be prescribed by the City Council, City Manager, department head or supervisor. 27. Engaging in political activities precluded by State or Federal law, City Ordinance, policy or these rules. F. Records Records pertaining to disciplinary actions shall be maintained in the employee's personnel file. SECTION 53: DISCIPLINARY APPEAL PROCEDURES A. Right to Appeal A regular full-time and for cause employee shall have the right to appeal the following disciplinary actions: 1. Suspensions without pay of four (4) or more working days. 2. Salary reduction. 3. Demotion. 4. Dismissal. A promotional probationary employee shall have the right to appeal the following disciplinary actions: suspension without pay of two (2) or more working days and dismissal. B. Method of Appeal Appeals shall be made in writing, state the grounds for the appeal, and signed by the appellant or his/her representative. Appeals shall be filed with the Administrative Services 27 Page 339 Department within eight (8) working days from the date the notice of disciplinary action is sent or delivered to the employee pursuant to Rule IX(Employee Conduct and Discipline), Section 2. Failure by the appellant or his/her representative to file the appeal within the aforementioned time period will constitute a waiver of his/her right to an appeal. C. Notice Upon the filing of an appeal, the Human Resources Department will set a date for a hearing on the appeal not less than eight (8)working days, nor more than twenty-four(24) working days, from the date of filing. However, the Human Resources Department may, at its discretion, waive such time limits if it determines that additional time is necessary. The Human Resources Department shall notify all interested parties of the date, time, and place of the hearing. D. Rules for Hearing Rules for the conduct of the hearing may be promulgated by the Personnel Officer. E. Hearing Officer Appeals shall be heard by the Personnel Officer. A decision rendered by the Personnel Officer, shall be final. F. Hearing Conduct and Representation The appellant shall appear personally, unless physically unable to do so, at the time and place of the hearing. He/she may, but need not be represented. If represented, the appellant must identify his/her representative at least three (3) working days before the hearing. The conduct and decorum of the hearing shall be under the control of the Hearing Officer. The hearing shall be closed unless the appellant requests that it be open. G. Evidence and Examination of Witnesses 1. Oral evidence shall be taken only on oath or affirmation. 2. Each party shall have the following rights: a. To call and examine witnesses. b. To produce documentary evidence. c. To cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though that matter was not cover in the direct examination. d. To impeach any witness regardless of which party first called him/her to testify. e. To rebut the evidence against him/her. 3. The hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses. The rules of privilege shall be effective to the extent that they otherwise 28 Page 340 are required by statute to be recognized at the hearing. Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. H. Findings and Conclusions Written findings of fact shall be made which state as to each charge whether or not such charge is sustained and shall affirm, reverse or modify the appealed decision. The Hearing Officer's decision on the appeal shall be contained in a formal, written document, which includes the findings of fact supporting the decision. The decision shall be final and binding and such decision shall be served in person or by certified mail to the employee's last known residence, return receipt, postage prepaid mail on the employee appealing the decision, and by regular mail or in person on the department head who instituted the discipline. Statute of Limitations The Hearing Officer's written findings and decision is final. There is no process for reconsideration. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, the parties have ninety (90) days from the date of the proof of service of mailing of the written findings and decision to appeal the decision to the Superior Court in and for the County of San Bernardino. SECTION 54: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES A. Purpose of Rule 1. To promote improved employer-employee relations by establishing procedures on matters for which appeal or hearing is not provided by other regulations. 2. To afford employees individually a systematic means of obtaining further consideration of problems after every reasonable effort has failed to resolve them through discussions. 3. To provide that grievances shall be settled as near as possible to the point of origin. 4. To provide that grievances shall be conducted as informally as possible. B. Matters Subject to Grievance Procedure An employee shall have the right to file a grievance concerning an alleged violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of City policy, City Personnel Rules and Regulations, and/or the Memorandum of Understanding. Matters otherwise subject to the disciplinary procedure shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. In addition, the following matters are excluded from this procedure: 1. Requests for changes in wages, hours, or working conditions, including any impasse or dispute in the meet and confer process or matter within the scope of representation; 2. Requests for changes in the content of employee evaluations or performance reviews, oral or written warnings, reprimands or counseling; 29 Page 341 3. Challenges to a reclassification, layoff, transfer, denial of reinstatement, or denial of a step or merit increase; 4. Challenges to any disciplinary action; and 5. Challenges to examinations or the appointment to positions. C. Informal Grievance Procedure Within eight (8) work days of the occurrence of the act(s) that constitutes the grievance, an employee shall discuss the grievance with his/her immediate supervisor. If, after this discussion, the employee does not believe the problem has been satisfactorily resolved, the employee shall have the right to discuss it with the supervisor's immediate superior in the administrative service, if any. Every effort shall be made to find an acceptable solution by informal means at the lowest possible level of supervision. If the employee is not in agreement with the decision reached by discussion, the employee shall then have the right to file a formal grievance in writing within five (5) working days after receiving the informal decision of the immediate supervisor. Failure of the employee to file the grievance within five (5) work days shall constitute a waiver of the grievance. Formal written grievances shall only apply to the employee affected, shall specifically identify the action being grieved, and shall include a statement of the action(s) desired by the grievant and the reasons therefore. D. Formal Grievance Procedure (Levels of Review Through Chain of Command) 1. First Level of Review: The grievance shall be presented in writing to the employee's immediate supervisor, who shall render a decision and comments in writing and return them to the employee within eight (8) working days after receipt of the grievance. If the employee does not agree with the supervisor's decision, or if no answer has been received within eight (8) working days, the employee may present the grievance, in writing, to the department head. Failure of the employee to take further action within eight (8) working days after receipt of the written decision of the supervisor, or within eight (8) working days if no decision is rendered, shall constitute a waiver of the grievance. 2. Department Review: The department head receiving the grievance of an employee or a designated representative shall discuss the grievance with the employee, the employee's representative if so desired, and with other appropriate persons. The department head shall render a decision and comments in writing and return them to the employee within eight (8) working days after receiving the grievance. If the employee does not agree with the decision reached, or if no answer has been received within eight (8) working days, the employee may present the grievance in writing to the Personnel Officer. Failure of the employee to take further action within eight (8) working days after receipt of the department head's written decision, or within eight(8) working days if no decision is rendered, shall constitute waiver of the grievance. 30 Page 342 3. Personnel Officer: The Personnel Officer, or his/her designated representative, upon receipt of the grievance, shall discuss the grievance with the employee, and/or the employee's designated representative, and with other appropriate persons. The Personnel Officer or designee shall render a decision in writing to the employee within eight (8) working days after receiving the grievance. The decision of the Personnel Officer shall be final. E. Conduct of Grievance Procedure 1. The time limits specified above may be extended to a definite date by mutual agreement of the employee and the reviewer concerned in writing. 2. The employee may have a representative of his or her choice present at all stages of the grievance procedure, except that no one may be represented by an employee he or she supervises, and no employee may be represented by his or her supervisor or department head. At least 48 hours prior the grievance meeting, the employee shall inform the individual hearing the grievance whether he or she will be represented at the grievance meeting and shall identify the representative. 3. EMPLOYEES SHALL BE ASSURED FREEDOM FROM REPRISAL FOR USING THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. 4. The grievant may request that the informal discussion with the immediate supervisor be waived. SECTION55: ADOPTION OF MOU This memorandum, between representatives of the City and Teamsters Local 1932, was adopted on July 20, 2022. SECTION 56: EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this memorandum of understanding are effective July 1, 2022, and continue for a three-year period, ending June 30, 2025. 31 Page 343 TEAMSTERS : CITY of RANCHO CUCAMONGA: DATED DATED Natalie Harts John Gillison Teamsters Business Representative City Manager Caleb Dupont Robert Neiuber Lead Maintenance Worker Human Resources Director Latu Ohoiner Lori Sassoon Maintenance Coordinator Deputy City Manager/Admin. Services Paul Corona Matt Burris Lead Mechanic Deputy City Manager/Econ. & Comm. Devel. Noah Daniels Finance Director Jenifer Phillips Deputy Director of Human Resources 32 Page 344 Resolution No. 2022- PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES Represented By THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932 ASSIGNMENTS OF CLASSIFICATIONS TO PAY RANGES Monthly Pay Ranges Effective July 4, 2022 Minimum Control Point Maximum Class Title Step Amount Step Amount Step Amount Electrician 5457 $4,925 5497 $6,012 5517 $6,644 Equipment Operator 5425 $4,199 5465 $5,126 5485 $5,664 Inventory Specialist Equipment/Mat 5389 $3,509 5429 $4,283 5449 $4,732 Lead Maintenance Worker 5429 $4,283 5469 $5,229 5489 $5,777 Lead Mechanic 5440 $4,526 5480 $5,523 5500 $6,103 Maintenance Coordinator 5452 $4,804 5492 $5,863 5512 $6,480 Maintenance Worker 5391 $3,544 5431 $4,325 5451 $4,778 Mechanic 5430 $4,305 5470 $5,255 5490 $5,807 Senior Maintenance Worker 5401 $3,723 5441 $4,547 5461 $5,024 Signal & Lighting Coordinator 5479 $5,497 5519 $6,710 5539 $7,414 Signal & Lighting Technician 5452 $4,804 5492 $5,863 5512 $6,480 ATTACHMENT 3 Teamsters Local 1932 Salary Schedule July 4, 2022 Page 345 RESOLUTION NO. 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING PAYING AND REPORTING THE VALUE OF EMPLOYER-PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS TO CALPERS FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (CITY) has the authority to implement Government Code Section 20691; and WHEREAS, the City has written labor agreements that specifically provide for the normal member contributions to be paid by the employer; and reported as additional compensation; and WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedure to modify Section 20691 is the adoption by CITY of a resolution modifying paying and reporting the value of Employer-Paid Member Contributions (EPMC) for employees who meet the conditions set forth; and WHEREAS, the City has identified the following conditions for the purpose of its election to pay EPMC: • This benefit shall apply to all miscellaneous employees within the Rancho Cucamonga City Employees Association and Teamsters Local 1932 bargaining units. • This benefit shall be reduced to zero, eliminating the percent the City pays towards the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Section 20636 (c)(4) as additional compensation for employees within the Rancho Cucamonga City Employees Association bargaining unit hired prior to September 1, 2010, employees hired on or after September 1, 2010, and before July 4, 2011, and employees hired on or after July 4, 2011. The effective date shall be July 4, 2022. • This benefit shall be reduced to zero, eliminating the percent the City pays towards the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent(value)of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Section 20636 (c)(4) as additional compensation for employees within the Teamsters Local 1932 bargaining unit hired prior to September 1, 2010, employees hired on or after September 1, 2010, and before July 4, 2011, and employees hired on or after July 4, 2011. The effective date shall be October 10, 2022. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES to approve the resolution modifying paying and reporting the value of Employer-Paid Member Contributions to CALPERS for the Rancho Cucamonga City Employees Association and Teamsters Local 1932 bargaining unit. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. ATTACHMENT 4— Resolution 2022- Page 346 rn1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r_2 DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Ian Tai, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution of Necessity of the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Declaring Certain Real Property Interests Necessary for Public Purposes and Authorizing the Acquisition Thereof in Connection with the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project (Southern California Edison Company, 9333 Etiwanda Avenue in Unincorporated San Bernardino County, San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 0229-291-23). (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-112). (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Consider the following Resolution,which is a Resolution of Necessity of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Declaring Certain Real Property Interests Necessary for Public Purposes and Authorizing the Acquisition Thereof in Connection with the City's Etiwanda Grade Separation Project: Resolution No. 2022-112 2. Open and conduct a hearing on the adoption of the proposed Resolution of Necessity, receive from City Staff the evidence stated and referred to in this Agenda Report ("Report"), take testimony from any person wishing to be heard on issues A, B, C, and D below, and consider all evidence to determine whether to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity, which requires the City Council's consideration and determination. 3. If the City Council finds, based on the evidence contained and referenced in this Report and the testimony and comments submitted to the City Council, that the evidence warrants the necessary findings with respect to the proposed Resolution of Necessity, then City Staff recommends that the City Council, in the exercise of its discretion, adopt proposed Resolution of Necessity No. 2022-112 (which requires a 4/5ths vote of the entire City Council) and authorize the City Attorney's office to file an eminent domain proceeding to acquire the following real property interests (referred to below as the "Subject Property Interests") from the parcel described below: 9333 Etiwanda Avenue, APN 0229-291-23 (SCE Parcel) Page 347 An approximate 45 square foot permanent easement, an approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and an approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, for grade separation purposes, and all uses necessary and convenient thereto from the real property located at 9333 Etiwanda Avenue in unincorporated San Bernardino County and further identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 0229-291-23, which is owned by Southern California Edison Company (referred to as "SCE Parcel"). The Subject Property Interests, comprised of the above-described real property interests, are described more particularly in the Resolution of Necessity. The Resolution of Necessity, with its respective Exhibits, is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. If the City Council adopts the proposed Resolution of Necessity, authorize the City Attorney's Office to file and prosecute an eminent domain proceeding for the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests by eminent domain. 5. Authorize the City Manager and his designees to execute all necessary documents. BACKGROUND: The City Council has before it a proposed Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property interests in connection with the City's Etiwanda Grade Separation Project ("Project"). The Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for grade separation. The Project involves the widening and construction of Etiwanda Avenue as a four-lane grade-separated roadway over the Southern California Regional Rail Authority("SCRRA")/Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad ("BNSF") San Gabriel subdivision, currently a two-lane at-grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right-of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project will widen Etiwanda Avenue to four traffic lanes including a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2025, the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and it will provide for safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Furthermore, the Project will provide improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. All work is consistent with the City's General Plan of Circulation. The Plans for the Project are on file with the Engineering Services Department and are incorporated herein by this reference. The Project requires the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests for grade separation, and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. On May 4, 2022, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino entered into an agreement allowing for the exercise of joint powers for the purpose of acquiring the Subject Property Interests located in unincorporated San Bernardino County for Project ("Joint Powers Agreement"). The Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the City to take all necessary and convenient steps to acquire the Subject Property Interests for the Project, including, without limitation, by purchase, lease, gift, devise, or the exercise of eminent domain. Page 2 Page 348 The City has attempted to negotiate in good faith with the owner to acquire the above-described Subject Property Interests. The City has been unable to reach a negotiated acquisition with the owner of the Subject Property Interests. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the proposed Resolution of Necessity at this time. ANALYSIS: The City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Project. The City seeks to construct the Project to improve circulation, mobility, and vehicle and rail safety. The Project's goal of converting into a grade-separated corridor the portion of Etiwanda Avenue that crosses with the SCRRA railroad, is identified in the City's General Plan. The Project was planned and located to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. Because of its scope, the Project requires the acquisition of numerous permanent easements and temporary construction easements over portions of several larger parcels, as well as fee interests in two parcels, owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will require some business/residential relocations. The City will coordinate construction with the owners of the Subject Property Interests to minimize the impact of the Project on the parcels, and to assist those persons and businesses displaced by the Project. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the acquisition by eminent domain of the required Subject Property Interests. The City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Project pursuant to the authority to acquire real property by eminent domain conferred on the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including but not limited to Sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and by other provisions of law. For the reasons set forth above, the construction of the Project is in the public interest and necessity and is needed to improve circulation, mobility, and vehicle and rail safety. Required Findings for Adoption of Resolution of Necessity Authorizing the Acquisition of the Subject Property Interests by Eminent Domain In order to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests, the City Council must find and determine, that: A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The Subject Property Interests described in the Resolution of Necessity are necessary for the Project; and D. The City has made an offer as required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the owner of record of the real property interests it seeks to acquire. Page 3 Page 349 The amount of just compensation is not an issue before the City Council at this hearing. The hearing relates to issues A, B, C, and D above. The amount of just compensation would be determined in the eminent domain proceedings that would be filed if the City Council, in its sole discretion, adopts the proposed Resolution of Necessity. Environmental Analysis The environmental effects of the Project were studied and analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). City Staff determined that the Project was statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Article 18. Statutory Exemptions, Section 15282. Other Statutory Exemptions, paragraph (g): Any railroad grade separation project which eliminates an existing grade crossing or which reconstructs an existing grade separation as set forth in Section 21080.13 of the Public Resources Code. On June 6, 2018, the City Council approved the Notice of Exemption and authorized Staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the County clerk as specified in Section 21080.13(2) of the Public Resources Code. The City duly filed the Notice of Exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County of San Bernardino on or about June 11, 2018, in accordance with the statutory requirements. In connection with the proposed Resolution of Necessity, on July 20, 2022, City Staff reviewed the environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Project. Pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, City Staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, and the City has obtained no new information of substantial importance that would require further environmental analysis. These environmental findings are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. City's Actions Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., the City of Rancho Cucamonga obtained a fair market value appraisal of the Subject Property Interests and the larger parcel of which the Subject Property Interests are a part, set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and extended a written offer to the owner of record. The City negotiated in good faith with the owner of record. As of the date of this Staff Report; however, the parties have not reached a negotiated agreement. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity at this time. Following is a summary of the actions taken by the City pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq. 9333 Etiwanda Avenue, APN 0229-291-23 (SCE Parcel) Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., the City of Rancho Cucamonga obtained a fair market value appraisal of the SCE Parcel, the approximate 45 square foot Page 4 Page 350 permanent easement, the approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and the approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months the City seeks to acquire for public use, namely grade separation purposes. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and extended a written offer to Southern California Edison Company, the owner of record, on February 28, 2022. The fair market value appraisal used a date of value of July 16, 2021. The City's written offer included an informational pamphlet describing the eminent domain process and the record owner's rights under the Eminent Domain Law. In accordance with Government Code Section 7267.2, the City's written offer contained a written statement of, and summary of the basis for, the amount it established as just compensation. The offer set forth the date of value utilized by the appraiser and explained the appraiser's opinion of the highest and best use of the larger parcel. It explained the applicable zoning designation of the larger parcel. The City's offer also summarized the principal transactions relied on by the appraiser to arrive at the appraiser's opinion of value. In addition, the written offer explained the appraiser's valuation analysis, including property improvements and severance damages. It also included the City's comparable market data relied on by the appraiser. Further, the City offered, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.025, to pay the record owner the reasonable costs, up to $5,000.00, for an independent appraisal of the Subject Property Interests. The City made several attempts to follow up and negotiate with the owner regarding the City's offer. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary for the City Council to consider the adoption of the proposed Resolution of Necessity authorizing the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests needed from the SCE Parcel. City's Actions Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235, the City sent a letter and a notice by first- class mail dated June 30, 2022, to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests the City seeks to acquire, informing it of the City's intent to consider at its July 20, 2022 meeting, the adoption of a resolution of necessity for the acquisition by eminent domain of the Subject Property Interests. The notice advised the record owner of its right to appear and be heard regarding the City's proposed adoption of the Resolution of Necessity by filing with the City, within fifteen days of the date the notice was mailed, a written request to appear at the hearing. The notice specifically informed the record owner of the Subject Property Interests that it has an opportunity to appear before the City Council and raise questions about whether the public interest and necessity require the Project; whether the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and whether the Subject Property Interests the City seeks to acquire from the owner of record is necessary for the Project. As discussed above, based on the proposed timing of the Project, it is necessary for the City Council to consider the adoption of the proposed Resolution of Necessity at this time. This hearing relates to issues A, B, C, and D below. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY A. The Public Interest and Necessity Require the Project Page 5 Page 351 The Project, as planned and designed, is in the public interest and necessity and is needed to improve vehicle and rail safety, traffic mobility, and surface transportation. The Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for grade separation and related purposes. The Project will widen the portion of Etiwanda Avenue from Napa Street to Whittram Avenue to a four-lane grade-separated roadway over the SCRRA/BNSF San Gabriel subdivision, which is currently a two-lane at-grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right-of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project includes the addition of a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side, and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2025, the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and it will provide for the safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Furthermore, the Project will provide for improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. Accordingly, the Project will benefit local residents and businesses, and the community as a whole. The Plans for the Project are on file with the Engineering Services Department and are incorporated herein by this reference. The Project, as planned and designed, is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which designated Etiwanda Avenue as a four-lane major arterial road. Anticipating the future growth of the SCRRA/BNSF corridor, the City's General Plan identified this area to be grade-separated. The City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Project. The City seeks to construct the Project to improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing. The Project was planned and located to minimize the impact on adjacent properties. Because of its scope, the Project requires the acquisition of numerous permanent easements and temporary construction easements over portions of several larger parcels, as well as fee interests in two parcels, owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will require some business/residential relocations. The City will coordinate the construction with the owners of the Subject Property Interests to minimize the impact of the Project on the parcels, and to assist those persons and businesses displaced by the Project. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the acquisition by eminent domain of the required Subject Property Interests. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use for which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the new right-of-way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650, than the uses for which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located on or within the area of the Subject Property Interests. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650. Page 6 Page 352 B. The Project is Planned and Located in the Manner that will be Most Compatible with the Greatest Public Good and the Least Private Injury The Project, as planned and designed, is in the public interest and necessity, and requires the acquisition of additional right of way for grade separation and related purposes. The Project will widen the portion of Etiwanda Avenue from Napa Street to Whittram Avenue to a four-lane grade-separated roadway over the SCRR/BNSF San Gabriel subdivision, which is currently a two-lane at-grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right-of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project includes the addition of a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side, and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2025, the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and provide for the safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Furthermore, the Project will result in improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. Accordingly, the Project will benefit local residents and businesses and the community as a whole. The Plans for the Project are on file with the Engineering Services Department and are incorporated herein by this reference. The Project was planned and located to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties. Because of its scope, the Project requires the acquisition of numerous permanent easements and temporary construction easements over portions of several larger parcels, as well as fee interests in two parcels, owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will require some business/residential relocations. The City will coordinate the construction with the owners of the Subject Property Interests to minimize the impact of the Project on the parcels and to assist those persons and businesses displaced by the Project. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the acquisition by eminent domain of the required Subject Property Interests. Further, the public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use for which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the new right-of-way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650, than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located on or within the area of the Subject Property Interests. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650. C. The Subject Property Interests Described in the Resolution of Necessity are Necessary for the Project The City seeks to construct the Project, as planned and designed, to improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the rail crossing. The Project will widen the portion of Etiwanda Avenue from Napa Street to Whittram Avenue to a four-lane grade-separated roadway over the SCRR/BNSF San Gabriel subdivision, which is currently a two-lane at- Page 7 Page 353 grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right- of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project includes the addition of a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side, and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2025, the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and it will provide for the safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Furthermore, the Project will result in improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. The City cannot construct the Project without the acquisition of the following Subject Property Interests, which are described more particularly in the Resolution of Necessity: 9333 Etiwanda Avenue, APN 0229-291-23 (SCE Parcel) An approximate 45 square foot permanent easement, an approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and an approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, for grade separation purposes, and all uses necessary and convenient thereto from the real property located at 9333 Etiwanda Avenue in unincorporated San Bernardino County and further identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 0229-291-23, which is owned by Southern California Edison Company. As stated above, the public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use for which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the new right-of-way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650, than the uses for which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located on or within the area of the Subject Property Interests. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650. D. The City has made an offer as required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to each owner of record of the Subject Property Interests The City, pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., obtained a fair market value appraisal of the Subject Property Interests, set just compensation in accordance with the fair market value, and extended a written offer to the owner of record of the Subject Property Interests. As detailed above, the City extended to the owner of record a written offer, pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2, to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. Specifically, the City extended a written offer to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests: Page 8 Page 354 The City extended a written offer to Southern California Edison Company to purchase an approximate 45 square foot permanent easement, an approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and an approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, for grade separation purposes, and all uses necessary and convenient thereto from the real property located at 9333 Etiwanda Avenue in unincorporated San Bernardino County and further identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 0229-291-23. Incorporation of Above-Referenced Documents: The following documents on file with the City Clerk's Office and/or the Engineering Services Department, which are referenced in this report, are incorporated herein by this reference: • Resolution of Necessity (attached hereto) • City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan • Offer letter to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests • Notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests • Plans for Project • Environmental Documents relating to Project • Notice of Exemption • Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino FISCAL IMPACT: The Etiwanda Grade Separation Project is funded by SB-1 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) grant funds which require construction to begin between July and December 2022. The acquisition of the right-of-way for the project is a critical step in meeting the funding deadlines. Anticipated funds needed for acquisition of right-of-way for the Project, including legal fees, will be funded through the TCEP grant funding allocation for the Project COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The Etiwanda Grade Separation Project will enhance the City Council's vision of creating a world class community in our region by improving safety, traffic flow, and access to the southeast area of the City ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 —Vicinity Map Attachment 2 — Resolution of Necessity No. 2022-112 Attachment 3— Notice of Hearing for Resolution of Necessity Page 9 Page 355 Etiwanda Avenue Grade Separation Southern California Edison Parcel APN 0229-291 -23 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE rrra�r eke Gem Gm G]L?EffA 1 G14 Bf 4 C3fo E13 N Legend: '/// = Project Location ATTACHMENT 1 Page 356 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT (PERMANENT EASEMENT AND TWO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS OVER PORTIONS OF APN 0229-291-23) WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") is a municipal corporation in the County of San Bernardino, State of California; and WHEREAS,the City seeks to construct the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project("Project"). The Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for grade separation. The Project involves the widening and construction of Etiwanda Avenue as a four-lane grade separated roadway over the Southern California Regional Rail Authority ("SCRRA")/Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad ("BNSF") San Gabriel subdivision, currently a two-lane at-grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right-of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project will widen Etiwanda Avenue to four traffic lanes including a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2025, the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and it will provide for safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Furthermore, the Project will provide improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. All work is consistent with the City's General Plan of Circulation. The Plans for the Project are on file with the Engineering Services Department and are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the environmental effects of the Project were studied and analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). City Staff determined that the Project was statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Article 18. Statutory Exemptions, Section 15282. Other Statutory Exemptions, paragraph (g) as a railroad grade separation project which eliminates and existing grade crossing or reconstructs an existing grade separation. The City Council approved the Notice of Exemption and authorized Staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the County clerk as specified in Section 21080.13(2) of the Public Resources Code. Said Notice of Exemption was filed with the Office of Planning and Research and with the County of San Bernardino on or about June 11, 2018 in accordance with the statutory requirements; and WHEREAS, in connection with the proposed Resolution of Necessity, on July 20, 2022, City Staff reviewed the environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Project. Pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, City Staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, and that the City has obtained no new information of substantial importance that Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 357 would require further environmental analysis. These environmental findings are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopts Resolution No. 2022-XXX, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Declaring Certain Real Property Interests Necessary for Public Purposes and Authorizing the Acquisition Thereof in Connection with the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project (permanent easement and two temporary construction easements over portions of APN 0229-291-23). SECTION 2. The City seeks to acquire by eminent domain the real property interests described below in Section 3 of this Resolution for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project pursuant to the authority conferred on the City of Rancho Cucamonga to acquire real property by eminent domain by Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including but not limited to Sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and by other provisions of law. SECTION 3. The City seeks to acquire an approximate 45 square foot permanent easement, an approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and an approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, for grade separation purposes, and all uses necessary and convenient thereto from the real property located at 9333 Etiwanda Avenue in unincorporated San Bernardino County and further identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 0229-291-23 in connection with the Project. The permanent easement and two temporary construction easements are collectively referred to herein as "Subject Property Interests," and APN 0229-291-23 is referred to herein as "SCE Parcel." The Subject Property Interests are described more particularly in Exhibits "A-1" through "A-3" and depicted on Exhibits "B-1" through "B-3", which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. On May 4, 2022 the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino entered into an agreement allowing for the exercise of joint powers for the purpose of acquiring the Subject Property Interests located in unincorporated San Bernardino County for Project ("Joint Powers Agreement"). The Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the City to take all necessary and convenient steps to acquire the Subject Property Interests for the Project, including, without limitation, by purchase, lease, gift, devise, or the exercise of eminent domain. SECTION 5. The environmental effects of the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests were studied as an integral part of the environmental review for the Project. In connection with the proposed Resolution of Necessity, on July 20, 2022, City Staff reviewed the environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Project. Pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, City staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, and that the City has obtained no new information of substantial importance that would require further environmental Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 2 of 6 Page 358 analysis. These environmental findings are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests. SECTION 6. The Project, as planned and designed, is in the public interest and necessity and is needed to improve vehicle and rail safety, traffic mobility, and surface transportation, as more fully explained below: A. The Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for grade separation. The Project involves the widening and construction of Etiwanda Avenue as a four- lane grade separated roadway over the Southern California Regional Rail Authority ("SCRRA")/Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad ("BNSF") San Gabriel subdivision, currently a two-lane at-grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right- of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project will widen Etiwanda Avenue to four traffic lanes including a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2025, the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and it will provide for safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Furthermore, the Project will provide improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. All work is consistent with the City's General Plan of Circulation. B. The Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, improve safety and level of service at the crossing, and provide for the safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Additionally, the Project will provide for improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. Accordingly, the Project will benefit the residents and businesses of the City and the community as a whole. C. The Project, as planned and designed, is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which designated Etiwanda Avenue as a four-lane major arterial road. Anticipating the future growth of the SCRRA/BNSF corridor, the City's General Plan identified this area to be grade separated. The City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Project. The City seeks to construct the Project to improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing. D. The Project was planned and located to minimize the impact on adjacent properties. Because of its scope, the Project requires the acquisition of several permanent easements and temporary construction easements over portions of several larger parcels, as well as fee interests in two parcels, owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will require some business/residential relocations. The City will coordinate the construction with the owner of the Subject Property Interests to minimize the impact of the Project on the parcel. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the acquisition by eminent domain of the required Subject Property Interests. SECTION 7. A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., the City of Rancho Cucamonga obtained a fair market value appraisal of the SCE Parcel, the approximate 45 square Resolution No. 2022-XXX- Page 3 of 6 Page 359 foot permanent easement, the approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and the approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months the City seeks to acquire for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. B. The City set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and extended a written offer on February 28, 2022 to Southern California Edison Company, the owner of record. The fair market value appraisal used a date of value of July 16, 2021. C. The City's written offer included an informational pamphlet describing the eminent domain process and the record owner's rights under the Eminent Domain Law. In accordance with Government Code Section 7267.2, the City's written offer contained a written statement of, and summary of the basis for, the amount it established as just compensation. The offer set forth the date of value utilized by the appraiser and explained the appraiser's opinion of the highest and best use of the larger parcel. It explained the applicable zoning designation of the larger parcel. The City's offer also summarized the principal transactions relied on by the appraiser to arrive at the appraiser's opinion of value. In addition, the written offer explained the appraiser's valuation analysis, including property improvements and severance damages. It also included the City's comparable market data relied on by the appraiser. Further, the City offered, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.025, to pay the record owner the reasonable costs, up to $5,000.00, for an independent appraisal of the Subject Property Interests. SECTION 8. The City provided written notice to the owner of record, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235 of the City Council's intent to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests by eminent domain. SECTION 9. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use for which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the new right-of- way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650, than the uses for which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located on or within the area of the Subject Property Interests. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650. SECTION 10. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the Project, including the Agenda Report and documents referenced therein and any oral and written testimony at the hearing, the City Council hereby finds and determines that: A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 4 of 6 Page 360 C. The Subject Property Interests described more particularly in Exhibits "Al" through "A-3" and depicted on Exhibits "B-1" through "B-3" hereto, are necessary for the Project; and D. The City has made the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests the City seeks to acquire. SECTION 11. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council, including the Agenda Report and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference, and any testimony and/or comments submitted to the City by the record owner and/or the owner's representative(s). These documents include, but are not limited to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan, the offer letter sent to the owner pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2, the notice to the record owner pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 of the City's intent to consider the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity, Grade Separation Plans for the Project, the Notice of Exemption for the Project, and the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino executed on May 4, 2022. SECTION 12. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney's Office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to acquire an approximate 45 square foot permanent easement, an approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and an approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months for the Project. The Subject Property Interests are described more particularly on Exhibits "A-1" through "A-3" and depicted on Exhibits "B-1" through "B-3" hereto. SECTION 13. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary documents in connection with the eminent domain proceeding. SECTION 14. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 2022. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 5 of 6 Page 361 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney Richards, Watson & Gershon CERTIFICATION: I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-XXX, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of July, 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 6 of 6 Page 362 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 0229-291-23 SERIAL NO. PERMANENT ROAD EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND NAPA STREET AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE NORTH 00°17'46" EAST, 76.07 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE SOUTH 89°42'14" EAST, 40.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE AND THE GENERALLY NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 NORTH 00°17'46" EAST, 620.58 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 AND ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 NORTH 88°57'20" EAST, 10.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 SOUTH 00°07'00" WEST, 32.29 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 193.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS SOUTH 82°07'25" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°43'27" AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17°36'02" EAST, 7.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°43'31" AN ARC LENGTH OF 2.42 FEET; Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT "A-I" Page 363 SERIAL NO. THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 75°52'32" EAST, 4.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14°07'28" EAST, 55.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75°52'32" WEST, 5.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 283.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS NORTH 81°31'15" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°35'45" AN ARC LENGTH OF 42.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°07'00" WEST, 82.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 273.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°49'09" AN ARC LENGTH OF 142.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29°42'09" EAST, 181.81 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 77.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30°00'00" AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°17'51" WEST, 43.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 38.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 71°56'07" AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.71 FEET TO THE CITY BOUNDARY LINE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE AND CONTINUING SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°37'O1" AN ARC LENGTH OF 9.69 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 14, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 852.95 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT ON CURVE BEARS NORTH 03°44'41" EAST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 AND ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°26'50" AN ARC LENGTH OF 51.32 FEET; Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT "A-1" Page 364 SERIAL NO. THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 NORTH 89°42'09" WEST, 110.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 NORTH 00°17'47" EAST, 0.09 FEET TO SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE SOUTH 89°46'08" EAST, 0.04 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID GENERALLY NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100; THENCE LEAVING SAID GENERALLY NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE SOUTH 89°46'08" EAST, 151.75 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A GRID AREA 45 SQUARE FEET OR 0.001 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTIONS ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CSRS EPOCH 2017.50 (NAD83 2011), ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. ALL FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B"ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. THIS DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT. PRELIMINARY 7/7/21 TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE Q�pL LAND P l S FFp GAG ;II ~ No. 7542 7,1 OF C ct Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT "A-I" Page 365 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 0229-291-23 SERIAL NO. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND NAPA STREET AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF NAPA STREET SOUTH 89°42'09" EAST, 90.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF NAPA STREET SOUTH 00°17'51" WEST, 33.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE AND THE GENERALLY SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 14, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 SOUTH 89°42'09" EAST, 88.48 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 SOUTH 81°40'20" WEST, 103.37 FEET TO SAID GENERALLY SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167; THENCE ALONG SAID GENERALLY SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 NORTH 41°48'30" EAST, 20.70 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A GRID AREA 686 SQUARE FEET OR 0.016 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTIONS ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CSRS EPOCH 2017.50 (NAD83 2011), ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. ALL FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B"ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A-2" Page 366 SERIAL NO. THIS DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT. PRELIMINARY 7/7/21 TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE 01,1. LAND 4".01 $ PA * No. 7542 OF CKO Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT "A-2" Page 367 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 0229-291-23 SERIAL NO. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND NAPA STREET AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE NORTH 00°17'46" EAST, 76.07 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE SOUTH 89°42'14" EAST, 40.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE AND THE GENERALLY NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 NORTH 00°17'46" EAST, 620.58 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 AND ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 NORTH 88°57'20" EAST, 10.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 SOUTH 00°07'00" WEST, 32.29 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 193.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS SOUTH 82°07'25" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°43'27" AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17°36'02" EAST, 7.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°43'31" AN ARC LENGTH OF 2.42 FEET; Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT "A-3" Page 368 SERIAL NO. THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 75°52'32" EAST, 4.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14°07'28" EAST, 55.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75°52'32" WEST, 5.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 283.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS NORTH 81°31'15" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°35'45" AN ARC LENGTH OF 42.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°07'00" WEST, 82.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 273.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°49'09" AN ARC LENGTH OF 142.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29°42'09" EAST, 181.81 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 77.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30°00'00" AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°17'51" WEST, 43.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 38.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 71°56'07" AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.71 FEET TO THE CITY BOUNDARY LINE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE AND CONTINUING SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°37'O1" AN ARC LENGTH OF 9.69 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 14, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 852.95 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT ON CURVE BEARS NORTH 03°44'41" EAST; Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT "A-3" Page 369 SERIAL NO. THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 AND ALONG A LINE RADIAL TO SAID 38.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE NORTH 03°44'43" EAST, 1.82 FEET TO SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE NORTH 89°46'08" WEST, 9.61 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A GRID AREA 11 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTIONS ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CSRS EPOCH 2017.50 (NAD83 2011), ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. ALL FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B"ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. THIS DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT. PRELIMINARY 7/7/21 TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE e .01 S FFl GAG No. 7542 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT "A-3" Page 370 LLAT TO EGAL DESCRIP770N ACCOMPANY EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. SEE SHEET 2 OF 3 FOR DETAIL 'B' P.a c. FOUND MAG NAIL AND WASHER SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, CENTERLINE MARKED "LS 6932"PER R.S.B. LEGEND, EASEMENT NOTES, SURVEYOR'S NOTE, INTERSECTION 168/53-63, FLUSH IN ASPHALT DETAIL 'A', AND LINE AND CURVE TABLES SEE CITY OF h (BASIS OF BEARINGS) S 44 40'27" W Lo DETAIL 'A' 2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Li �I (N 00'17'46"E R.S.B. 168/53-63) RAD"\_ ON SHEET 3 SANCOUNTY OF BERNARDINO M I N p ETIWANDA AVENUE pp ago 0 R/W LINE h J N 0077'46"E 620.58' / C2 L3 erro I N 8131'15"E L6 �, C ci L4 co �� RAD. \ L7 ►i L5 L_ S 820725" W e6 © /y 49'09" L9 I I RAD. ce D=2 73.00, C3 L8 X i R 1�}Z.OS I NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 rn m I o Z 11I11 /8� I T1S., R.6W., S.B.M. Z vj W PORTION APN J I ' o q 0229-291-23 I t,209 2866 0.R. 305 00 § W 5 29 REC. 12/12/1951 6 1 I I-- • TEMPORARY 33' 33 CL10/�c`1 APN 0229-291-22 III o ui CONSTRUCTION T.P.O.B. I o_ EASEMENT ,"C6 CITY BOUNDARY LINE POR. SECTION 16 110' (11 SQ.FT.) POR. APN 0229-291-23 T.1.S., R.6W., S.B.M. ,, �� 40' I o ‘P� L AND S Q �O 0—EASTERLY LINE OF I III ��\Op��1 S. FF/,'• SEE c� INST NO. 19970023100 O.R. o DETAIL 'B' Z o RECORDED 1/23/1997 I 11 I I a o I No. 7542 ON SHEET 2 o-I�Q to-GENERALLY ti2loj PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION: cP Q �o NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF �\ m I o INST NO. 19970023100 O.R. 9j, c��' oZ z I RECORDED 1/23/1997 PRELIMINARY F OF \ o 33' 33'I I 1 7/7/21 A� varo ' ' TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE (SHEET 1 OF 3) cr `''`° PROJECT NAME: M.S.: ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: DATE: "'®"CALIFORNIA 0 100 200 E®DS®N" DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 A.IDAOMMINNAMONMA c.Oq SCALE IN FEET CHECKED BY: JH TRES: SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE—HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. T..P.O.B. CITY BOUNDARY 1 O' APN 0229-291-22 LINE / 'T TEMPORARY ZD/ CONSTRUCTION 2 t W "� co/ EASEMENT / (11 SQ.FT.) CITY OF CITY BOUNDARY \ / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LINE ___ L 12_ RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF _ _ _ _ COUNTY OF / SAN BERNARDINO -_ _ _C7— — L 11 SAN BERNARDINO © PORTION APN 0229-291-23 © C6 1,.... ` S, �R/W LINE m 0-GENERALLY N�311 X NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF NAPA STREET 03� !y Ao I INST. NO. 19970023100 0.R. ¢7' ---,go W RECORDED 1 23 1997 F•''�9p•• R 3 O -NORTHERLY LINE OF s?gs> INST NO. 20010368167 O.R. lid RECORDED 8/14/2001 DETAIL 'B' NO SCALE SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND, EASEMENT NOTES, SURVEYOR'S NOTE, DETAIL 'A', AND LINE AND CURVE TABLES 'R°R° io (SHEET 2 OF 3) rn 6 PROJECT NAME: M.S.: t� ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: DATE: my SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 N nv1axc®o, ♦ CHECKED BY: JH TRES: SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE—HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS: SURVEYOR'S NOTE.. EASEMENT NOTES THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE -40' WIDE EASEMENT FOR WATER PURPOSES ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 GRANTED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER BEING N 00'17'46" E, AS SHOWN ON (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CSRS EPOCH 2017.50 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PER RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN (NAD83 2011). 1308/465. O.R., REC. 11/23/1938 R.S.B. 168/53-63, RECORDS OF SAID ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN Bo-VARIABLE WIDTH EASEMENT FOR ROAD COUNTY. GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. PURPOSES GRANTED TO KAISER STEEL CORPORATION PER 6390/303, O.R. REC. 5/13/1965 LEGEND 0—VARIABLE WIDTH AND 10' WIDE EASEMENT CURVE TABLE FOR ROAD AND SEWER PURPOSES GRANTED (XXXX) INDICATES RECORD DATA PER RECORD OF SURVEY TO DAVID F. BOLGER, TRUSTEE, PER INST. 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, NO. DELTA RADIUS LENGTH NO. 94-334698, O.R., REC. 8/5/1994 OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS (R.S.B. 168/53-63) Cl 0943'27" 193.00' 32.76' m • FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED C2 27'43'31" 5.00' 2.42' = APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER C3 0835'45" 283.00' 42.46' LINE TABLE W_ CSRS CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM C4 _ 3000'00" _ 7700' 40.32' -I Q CENTERLINE C5 _ 7156'07" 38.00' 47.71" NO. BEARING LENGTH INST. INSTRUMENT C6 14 37'01" 38.00' 9.69' L 1 N 0077'46"E 76.07' C7 0326'50" 852.95' 51.32' L2 S 89 42'14"E 40.00' LS LAND SURVEYOR L3 N 88'57'20"E 10.00' O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS L4 S 00'0700" W 32.29' P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT L5 S 17'36'02"E 7.64' POR. PORTION L6 N 7552'32"E 4.60' ' L7 S 14 0728"E 55.75' RAD. RADIAL L5 Cl W L8 S 7552'32" W 5.37' REC. RECORDED C2L9 S R.S.B. RECORD OF SURVEY BOOK L6 5 44.4— AD. L 10 S 007751""W 43.19' R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY L7 DETAIL 'A' L11 N 03'44'43"E 1.82' RAD. I T.P.O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING L 12 N 89 46'OS" W 9.61 '\\\ 11 SF RARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO SCALE I ------- PARENT PARCEL b Ro Ro ----- CITY BOUNDARY LINE ro cr c - CENTERLINE (SHEET 3 OF 3) w'z?'-64EASEMENT LINE PROJECT NAME: _____ M.S.: w ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: DATE: my, DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 iagrxxwiragiNAnewafrmem CHECKED BY: JH TRES: _______ SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: LLAT TO EGAL DESCRIPTION Y EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. 50' 40' I APN 0229-291-22 P.O.C. CENTERLINE INTERSECTION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --- --- -- ---- COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOUND MAG NAIL AND WASHER j F NAPA STREET MARKED "LS 6932" PER R.S.B. S 89 42'09" E 90.00'_ _ 168/53-63, FLUSH IN f (BASIS OF BEARINGS) ASPHALT ' TP O B J i (N 89 42'09" W R.S.B. 168/53-63) R/W LINE I © �R/W LINE ' 1 S 89 42'09" E 88.48' S 81'40'20" W 103 37 TEMPORARY 2 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT W ' • ( 4 c•) I (0.016 ) ' Q I 2866 O.R. 305 0-EASTERLY LINE OF O REC. 12/12/1951 INST. NO. 20010368167 O.R. 1 I POR. APN 0229-291-23 RECORDED 8/14/2001 ' + I 40' I to-GENERALLY !� I FOR. SECTION 16 SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF INST. NO. 20010368167 O.R. --I T.1.S., R.6 W., S.B.M. RECORDED 8/14/2001 Z 3 -SOUTHERLY LINE OF ciINST. NO. 20010368167 O.R. ' k H 0 RECORDED 8/14/2001 i jLINE TABLE 50' o 1 0 40' ; NO. BEARING LENGTH SOU I�Q 12 L1 S 0077'51" W 33.00' J I L2 N 4148'30" E 20.70' tiV a .) .„ LAND S Uo ,�a11\7. EET 2 OF 2 FOR S FF1. <' 1 �' I BASIS SEE HOF BEARINGS, LEGEND, 'o o I EASEMENT NOTE, AND * No. 7542 * PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION: SURVEYOR'S NOTE 9� �� PRELIMINARY _=0 100 0 of Cm...0 7 7 21 SCALE IN FEET TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE (SHEET 1 OF 2) PROJECT NAME: M.S.: ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: DATE: ®SOUTHERN�® DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 ,n EDISONEMENAMowAL•Comm CHECKED BY: JH TARES: SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: Page 374 EXHIBIT "B-1' EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS: EASEMENT NOTE THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED A-PORTION OF 22' WIDE EASEMENT FOR ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, ROAD PURPOSES GRANTED TO THE BEING N 00'17'46" E, AS SHOWN ON COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PER INST. RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN NO. 20000412103, O.R., REC. 11/9/2000 R.S.B. 168/53-63, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. LEGEND (XXXX) INDICATES RECORD DATA PER RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS (R.S.B. 168/53-63) • FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER CSRS CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM CENTERLINE INST. INSTRUMENT LS LAND SURVEYOR O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT POR. PORTION REC. RECORDED R.S.B. RECORD OF SURVEY BOOK R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY T.P.O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING I\\\\ 686 SF,A0.0160ACTRUCTION EASEMENT ------- PARENT PARCEL ----- CITY BOUNDARY LINE CENTERLINE EASEMENT LINE SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CRTS EPOCH 2017.50 (NAD83 2011). ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. (SHEET 2 OF 2) PROJECT NAME: ________ M.S.: ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: DATE: gi ® ZPIP DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 MrMMIINurnawc•Cowin, CHECKED BY: JH TARES: SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: Page 375 EXHIBIT "B-2" LLAT EGAL D SCRIP77ON ACCOMPANY EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. SEE SHEET 2 OF 3 FOR DETAIL 'B' Pat; FOUND MAG NAIL AND WASHER SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, CENTERLINE MARKED "LS 6932"PER R.S.B. LEGEND, EASEMENT NOTES, SURVEYOR'S NOTE, INTERSEC770N 168/53-63, FLUSH IN ASPHALT DETAIL 'A, AND LINE AND CURVE TABLES CITY OF h (BASIS OF BEARINGS) -_ h DETAIL �A .2 E S 44 40'27" W o 0 RANCHO CUCAMONGA L1 � (N 00'17'46"E R.S.B. 168/53-63) RAD. �_ SHEET 3 SAN BERNARDINOCOUNTY OF I JI p ETIWANDo 17AI/ENU'46"E o8 R/W LINE B C C2/ON W \ 1 1 N 8131'15"E N L6\ L3 C( ' 1 SEE RAD. \ C1 L4 (� m " 2 DETAIL 'B' /� Lg -��` L7 1 I I L5 L S 82072RA0 1 (n ON SHEET 2 p 9'49.00' C3 LS G R'273.08' NORTHERLY LINE X i PERMANENT j L-41 I OF SECTION 16 °'m x_ o 'I ROAD EASEMENT /a1' I T.1S., R.6W., S.B.M. z vi �_ I (45 SQ.FT.) /E 1 O q PORTION APN C--1 E I •�I (0.001 AC.) a2o9 2866 O.R. 305 00 w Lo pp 0229-291-23 z.l �'1 / s 29 REC. 12/12/1951 60 1 1 -- 42 33' 33ii, Cy/\L1o/ -C4 APN 0229-291-22 I I I I O N N 034441"E RAD. T.P.O.B. o R=852.9. — C6 I CITY BOUNDARY LINE POR. SECTION 16 10' 4 ��POR. APN 0229-291-23 T.1.S., R.6W., S.B.M. lam', 40' I I �P� L AND S -EASTERLY LINE OF I III <,c,,0 p-\Ny S FFT G�,GF INST Na 19970023100 O.R. o �� 2 o RECORDED 1/23/1997 III a ~ c� oA 14-o I I * No. 7542 °.q I `7 0—GENERALLY �ZlojPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION: in /Q NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF .`� / 2 m 1 o INST NO. 19970023100 O.R. 9� �� o Z l RECORDED 1/23/1997 PRELIMINARY `� of �F° 33' 33'I v¢i Q 7/7/21 c A� va ' ' TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE (SHEET 1 OF 3) cr PROJECT NAME: ____ M.S.: ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: DATE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 0 100 200 IEDOS®H DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 MErBo17uaalPA77ori1L nmra SCALE IN FEET CHECKED BY: JH TRES: __ __ SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE—HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. T.P.O.B. CITY BOUNDARY ;1O' Quo APN 0229-291-22 LINE a Q o PERMANENT \\ :;z./ �� ROAD EASEMENT `v // W (45 SQ.FT.) Lis / o CITY OF L13 (0.001 AC.) CITY BOUNDARY \ / �l CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA_- S 89'46'08"E 151.75' / LINE __ _R_AN_CHO CUCAMONGA__ COUNTY OF \\\\ \\\\\\\ y\\\_\\ 06 COUNTY OF / SAN BERNARDINO © � 3 \\ ___ SAN BERNARDINO,/12 N 89 42'09" W 110.00' C7 _ X PORTION APN 0229-291-23 0�, TR/W LINE = 2 -GENERALLY -C°C). W NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF NAPA STREET ;'I� q INST NO. 19970023100 O.R. RECORDED 1/23/1997 CO -NORTHERLY LINE OF o, �".1 INST. Na 20010368167 O.R. 1 RECORDED 8/14/2001 DETAIL 'B' I NO SCALE SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND, EASEMENT NOTES, SURVEYOR'S NOTE, DETAIL 'A', AND LINE AND CURVE TABLES ' R°R° v (SHEET 2 OF 3) La'-ifscr 64 PROJECT NAME: M.S.: ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: DATE: gT ""�"cwua DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 ��®Comm+ CHECKED BY: JH TRES: _____ SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE—HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS: SURVEYOR'S NOTE.- EASEMENT NOTES THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE -40' WIDE EASEMENT FOR WATER PURPOSES ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 GRANTED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER BEING N 00'17'46" E, AS SHOWN ON (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CSRS EPOCH 2017.50 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PER RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN (NAD83 2011). 1308/465. O.R., REC. 11/23/1938 R.S.B. 168/53-63, RECORDS OF SAID ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN 0-VARIABLE WIDTH EASEMENT FOR ROAD COUNTY. GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. PURPOSES GRANTED TO KAISER STEEL CORPORATION PER 6390/303, O.R. REC. 5/13/1965 LEGEND 0-VARIABLE WIDTH AND 10' WIDE EASEMENT CURVE TABLE FOR ROAD AND SEWER PURPOSES GRANTED (XXXX) INDICATES RECORD DATA PER RECORD OF SURVEY TO DAVID F. BOLGER, TRUSTEE, PER INST. m 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, Na DELTA RADIUS LENGTH NO. 94-334698, O.R., REC. 8/5/1994 OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS (R.S.B. 168/53-63) X Cl 0943'27" 193.00' 32.76' I • FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED C2 27'43'31" 5.00' 2.42' W APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER C3 0835'45" 283.00' 42.46' LINE TABLE - CSRS CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM C4 3000'00" 7700' 40.32' CO CENTERLINE C5 7156'07" 38.00' 4Z71' NO. BEARING LENGTH w INST.. INSTRUMENT C6 1437'01" 38.00' 9.69' Li N 0077'46"E 76.07' C7 0326'50" 852.95' 51.32' L2 S 89 42'14"E 40.00' LS LAND SURVEYOR L3 N 88'57'20"E 10.00' O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS L4 S 00 07'00" W 32.29' P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT L5 S 17'36'02"E 7.64' POR. PORTION L6 N 7552'32"E 4.60' RAD. RADIAL _� Cl % L7 S 14 0728"E 55.75' REC. RECORDED C2 i W L8 S 75 52'32" W 5.37' R.S.B. RECORD OF SURVEY BOOK L6 5 44.`}.---.�/ L 10 S 00L9 S �7'51"7'00"W 43.19' R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY L7 DETAIL 'A L 11 N 89 42'09" W 110.00' T.P.O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING L 12 N 00'17 47"E 0.09' I y PERMANENT ROAD EASEMENT NO SCALE L13 S 89'46'08"E 0.04' h\\\152,508 SF, 1.205 AC L 14 S 89'46'08"E 151.75' ------- PARENT PARCEL b R°Ro ----- CITY BOUNDARY LINE CENTERLINE (SHEET 3 OF 3) W'z$'c; EASEMENT LINE PROJECT NAME: M.S.: oo ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: DATE: �1I 1 SOUTHERN DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 e.EDswvn BONAL•COMM CHECKED BY: JH TRES: SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: Mayor L.Dennis Michael I Mayor Pro Tern Lynne B.Kennedy Council Members Ryan A.Hutchison,Kristine D.Scott City Manager John R.Gillison err err CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rIr� rr r ( r 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 I 1-909-477-2700 I www.CityofRC.us r June 30, 2022 Southern California Edison Company 2 Innovation Way,2nd Floor Pomona, California 91768-2560 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF HEARING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235 [ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS FROM REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9333 ETIWANDA AVENUE, UNINCORPORATED SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229-291-23 FOR PUBLIC USE] Dear Property Owner: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga intends to consider at the meeting of July 20, 2022 the adoption of a resolution of necessity pursuant to the provisions of the Eminent Domain Law, and in particular Article 2 of Chapter 4 of Title 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP Section 1245.210 et seq.), for the acquisition of a 45 square foot permanent easement, a 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months, and an 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months, over portions of the real property located at 9333 Etiwanda Avenue, unincorporated San Bernardino County, California, and identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor's Parcel Number 0229-291-23 ("Subject Property")for public use, namely for grade separation purposes,and all uses necessary and convenient thereto in connection with the construction of the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga("Project"). The Project, as planned and designed, involves the widening and construction of Etiwanda Avenue as a four-lane grade separated roadway over the SCRRA/BNSF San Gabriel subdivision,currently a two-lane at-grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right-of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project will widen Etiwanda Avenue to four traffic lanes including a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2024,the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and it will provide for the safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Furthermore, the Project will provide for improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. Specifically, the City seeks to acquire the following real property interests from the Subject Property: Acquisition of an approximate 45 square foot permanent easement, an approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months, and an 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months, over portions of your property("Subject Property Interests")in connection with the Project. The Subject Property Interests are described more ATTACHMENT 3     Page 379 SCE Company Letter June 30,2022 Page 2 particularly in Exhibits "A-1" through 'A-3" and depicted on Exhibits"B-1"through "B-3"attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. You have the right to appear before the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and to be heard on the following matters pertaining to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests in connection with the Project: (i) Whether the public interest and necessity require the Project; (ii) Whether the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; (iii) Whether the Subject Property Interests the City seeks to acquire are necessary for the Project; and (iv) Whether the City has made the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the owners of record. The issue of the amount of compensation for the Subject Property Interests is not an issue before the City Council at the hearing and will not be considered by the City Council at that hearing. If you wish to appear and be heard, you should file a written request to be heard within 15 days after the date this notice is mailed. Failure to file a written request to appear within the 15-day period may result in a waiver of your right to appear and be heard. You should file your request to be heard at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 For your convenience, if you are unable to personally appear at the hearing or you choose to submit written objections in place of a personal appearance, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council will consider any written objections that are filed within the 15-day period set forth above. All written objections filed with the Rancho Cucamonga City Council within the 15-day period will become part of the official record of the meeting at which the City Council hears the Resolution. We recommend that if you intend to appear, or if you intend to submit written objections in place of an appearance, you submit the written objections in person at the address shown above, or that you mail your correspondence and provide an electronic copy of the correspondence to me by electronic mail at jason,welday@cityofrc.us to confirm that your response was received within the 15-day period. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to hold a hearing regarding the intent to consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity for the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests by eminent domain on July 20,2022 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Council Chambers of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.     Page 380 SCE Company Letter June 30,2022 Page 3 Members of the public may attend in-person or can watch virtually via one of the following ways: Live Streaming on the City's website at: https://www.cityofrc.us/your-governmenticity-council-agendas or Local Cable: RCTV3 Programming Members of the public wishing to speak during the public hearing will need to attend in-person. Dated. June 30, 2022 By: 41(414cirk fiber. Jason Welday, Engineer Attachments: Legal Description and Depiction of Subject Property     Page 381 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 0229-291-23 SERIAL NO. PERMANENT ROAD EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP I SOI TH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRI I ORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO TI-IE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF,SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND NAPA STREET AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE NORTH 00°17'46" EAST, 76.07 FEET; I HENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE SOUTH 89°42'I4" EAST. 40.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE AND THE GENERALLY NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF i HE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 NORTH 00'17'46" EAST,620.58 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 AND ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 NORTH 88'57'20" EAST, 10.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 SOUTH 00'0700" WEST, 32.29 FEET TO TILE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 193.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CI.IRVE BEARS SOUTH 82'07'25" WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°43'27" AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH I7"36'02" EAST, 7.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27'43'31"AN ARC LENGTH OF 2.42 FEET; Page I c: 3 EXHIBIT "A-1"     Page 382 SERIAL NO. THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 75°52'32" EAST,4.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14°07'28" EAST,55.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75'52'32" WEST, 5.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 283.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS NORTH 8191'15" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°35'45"AN ARC LENGTH OF 42.46 FEET; THENCE SOI'TH 00'07'00" WEST, 82.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 273.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°49'09"AN ARC LENGTH OF 142.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29'42'09" EAST, 181.81 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 77.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30°00'00'AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°I7'5l" WEST, 43.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE,CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY,HAVING A RADIUS OF 38.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 71°56'07" AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.71 FEET TO THE CITY BOUNDARY LINE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF'BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE AND CONTINUING SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°37'01" AN ARC LENGTH OF 9.69 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 14, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 852.95 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT ON CURVE BEARS NORTH 03°44'41" EAST; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 AND ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°26'50"AN ARC LENGTH OF 51.32 FEET; Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT"Al"-     Page 383 SERIAL NO. THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 NORTH 89°42'09" WEST, 110.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO.20010368167 NORTH 00°17'47" EAST,0.09 FEET TO SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE SOUTH 89°46'08" EAST, 0.04 FEET TO TI-IE INTERSECTION OF SAID GENERALLY NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023I00; THENCE LEAVING SAID GENERALLY NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE SOUTH 89°46'08" EAST. 151.75 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A GRID AREA 45 SQUARE FEET OR 0.001 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. T]-IE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTIONS ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CSRS EPOCH 2017.50 (NAD83 2011), ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. ALL FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT"B"ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. THIS DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 'PHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME,OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT. PRELIMINARY 7/7/21 TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE \�at`L LANp �5�o1�r S FFjG�b 4 m o * No. 7542 it OF C Al\ Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT "A-I"     Page 384 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN:0229-291-23 SERIAL NO. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP I SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF,SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND NAPA STREET AS SFIOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF NAPA STREET SOUTH 89'42'09" EAST, 90.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF NAPA STREET SOUTH 00' 17'51" WEST, 33.00 FEET TO TI IC INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE AND THE GENERALLY SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO TI-IE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 14, 2001 AS INSTRI'MENT NO. 20010368167, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF TFIE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COLNTY,SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO.20010368167 SOUTH 89'42'09' EAST,88.48 FEET; TI IENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 SOUTH 81'40'20" WEST, 103.37 FEET TO SAID GENERALLY SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO.20010368167; THENCE ALONG SAID GENERALLY SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 NORTH 41'48'30" EAST,20.70 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A GRID AREA 686 SQUARE FEET OR 0.016 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. TFIE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTIONS ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CSRS EPOCH 2017.50 (NAD83 2011). ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. ALL FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT"B"ATTACI IED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. Page I of 2 EXHIBIT "A-2"     Page 385 SERIAL NO. THIS DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT. PRELIMINARY 7/7/21 TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE ,�I.L LAND 4 h (o O * No. 7542 1[ 9f'—y Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT"A-2"     Page 386 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN:0229-291-23 SERIAL NO. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP I SOUTII, RANGE 6 WEST. SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND NAPA STREET AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE NORTH 00°17'46" EAST, 76.07 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENT ERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE SOUTH 89°42'14" EAST, 40.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE AND THE GENERALLY NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF 111E VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PER THE DOC1'MENT RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 NORTH 00°17'46" EAST,620.58 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 16; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 AND ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 NORTH 88°57'20" EAST, 10.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 SOUTH 00'07'00" WEST, 32.29 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 193.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS SOUTH 82°07'25' WEST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°43'27" AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 17°36'02" EAST, 7.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE. CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°43'3I" AN ARC LENGTH OF 2.42 FEET; Page I of 3 EXHIBIT "A-3"     Page 387 SERIAL NO. TI IENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 75°52'32" EAST,4.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTFI 14°07'28" EAST, 55.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75°52'32" WEST, 5.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, FIAVING A RADIUS OF 283.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS NORTH 81°31'15" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°35'45"AN ARC LENGTH OF 42.46 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°07'00" WEST, 82.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE,CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 273.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°49'09"AN ARC LENGTH OF 142.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29°42'09" EAST, 181.81 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 77.00 FEET; THENCE; SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGI-I A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30°00'00"AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°17'51" WEST, 43.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE,CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 38.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 71°56'07" AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.71 FEET TO THE CITY BOUNDARY LINE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE AND CONTINUING SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°37'01" AN ARC LENGTH OF 9.69 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 14, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 852.95 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT ON CURVE BEARS NORTFI 03°44'4I" EAST; Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT "A-3"     Page 388 SERIAL NO. THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 AND ALONG A LINE RADIAL TO SAID 38.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE NORTH 03°44'43" EAST, 1.82 FEET TO SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE NORTH 89°46'08" WEST, 9.61 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A GRID AREA II SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTIONS ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CSRS EPOCH 2017.50 (NAD83 2011), ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. ALL FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT"B"ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. TI-IIS DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME,OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT. PRELIMINARY 7/7/21 TIMOTIIY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE oNp1. L,1,yp \ * No. 7542 * 9lF OF 1.\ �� CA Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT "A-3"     Page 389 PLAT TO PAN LEGAL DESCRIP71ON Y EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. SEE SHEET 2 OF 3 FOR DETAIL '8' P ac. FOUND MAG NAIL AND WASHER SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, CENTERLINE MARKED "LS 6932"PER R.SB. LEGEND, EASEMENT NOTES, SURVEYOR'S NOTE, INTERSECAON 168/53-63, FLUSH IN ASPHALT DETAIL 'A, AND LINE AND CURVE TABLES I SEE CITY OF h (BASIS OF BEARINGS) S 44 40'27" W , DETAIL 'A' h RANCHO CUCAMONGA L1 (N 007746"E R.S.B. 168/53-63) RAD. ON SHEET 3 COUNTY OF--- '� I I yi a - 0 �� ETIWANDA AVENUE R/W LINE pp\\ a SAN BERNARDINO " 0 „� N 0077 46"E 620.58' C2 W , E ! N 813175"E Lb 1� r L3 © T 1.4 09; �� L9 RAD. \ LT 1 If L5 4 S 82072RAD Rl Q I lr29 73.00 C3 L81 1 1 X g I L 14y08 I NORTHERLY LINE el { OF SECTION 16 01 m I o Z I I /0' I T.1E., R.6W., S.B.M. Z vi PORTION APN 8 = 0229-291-23 C�.I it I 4209 1 2866 O.R. 305 Oo- o� IP I 5 2g REC. 12/12/1951 I 1 v s TEMPORARY 33' 33'� --- `LIO ' C4 APN 0229-291-22 III I - o� CONSTRUCTION T.P.O.B. a EASEMENT 'C6 1 CITY BOUNDARY UNE POR. SECTION 16 I 0- `1 ►- (11 SQ.F7.) POR. APN 0229-291-23 T.1.S., R.6W., S.B.M. ,I� 40' I o l 1 �A> I_AND S I'l l i 0 0-EASTERLY LINE OF `��' �`� 5. FF 4'G SEE INST. NO. 19970023100 O.R. , o �° tom,�p DETAIL 'B' i 4 g I RECORDED 1/23/1997 1 1 I I a ON SHEET 2 cz��"K I 0-GENERALLY PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION: 1 ;4; I No. 7552 c j NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF ! m o INST. NO. 19970023100 O.R. 9� �_ c,z 6 I RECORDED 1/23/1997 PRELIMINARY F OF �Fo 33' 33.1 Q I 7/7/21 C AL TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE (SHEET 1 OF 3) ro R.R. z PROJECT NAME: I M.S.: -- do ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA cp w'C'C4. 0 100 v;o c. SURVEYED SY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.:__ DATE: _ ©®SON° DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 M.mmrxmwnarwwa /I SCALE IN FEET CHECKED BY: JH TRES: SERIAL NO.: — FILE NAME: EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. T.P.O.B. CITY BOUNDARY A•1 LINE a/Q APN 0229-291-22 �/� TEMPORARY Z)/ CONSTRUCTION `v EASEMENT ti � (11 SQ.FT.) CITY OF Q CITY BOUNDARY \ / CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' `-- LINE L12 RANCHO CUCAMONGA --- --- COUNTYOF --- --- SAN BERNARDINO -' L 11 COUNTY OF / - --`��— - __ SAN BERNARDINO © PORTION APN 0229-291--23 © �R/W LINE 0-GENERALLY C6 L`S0,F,,a. X NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF NAPA STREET 4'it- -' INST NO. 19970023100 O.R. 4't4i QAp CT3_ RECORDED 1/23/1997 `cRgp�R So-NORTHERLY LINE OF 4k-8529 INST NO. 20010368167 O.R. W RECORDED 8/14/2001 DETAIL 'El' NO SCALE SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND, EASEMENT NOTES, SURVEYOR'S NOTE DETAIL '11', AND LINE AND CURVE TABLES (SHEET 2 OF 3) PROJECT NAME: M.S.: ORDER NO.:_ NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA cp Cr'Cr w'C'C4. SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.:___ DATE: ®SON. DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 mjnixemmptWAThaffigfro...v CHECKED BY: JH TRES: SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS: SURVEYORS NOTE: EASEMENT NOTES THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE Q-40' WIDE EASEMENT FOR WATER PURPOSES ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 GRANTED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER BEING N 00'17'46" E, AS SHOWN ON (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CSRS EPOCH 2017.50 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PER RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN (NAD83 2011). 1308/465. O.R., REC. 11/23/1938 R.S.B. 168/53-63, RECORDS OF SAID ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN Bo-VARIABLE WIDTH EASEMENT FOR ROAD COUNTY. GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. PURPOSES GRANTED TO KAISER STEEL CORPORATION PER 6390/303, O.R. REC. 5/13/1965 LEGEND 0-VARIABLE WIDTH AND 10' WIDE EASEMENT CURVE TABLE FOR ROAD AND SEWER PURPOSES GRANTED (XXXX) INDICATES RECORD DATA PER RECORD OF SURVEY TO DAVID F. BOLGER, TRUSTEE, PER INST. 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, Na DELTA RADIUS LENGTH NO. 9 4-3346 9 8, O.R., REC. 8/5/1994 OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS (R.S.B. 168/53-63) • FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED Cl 09'4327" 193.00' 32.76' X C2 274331" 5.00' 2.42' _ = APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER C3 08155 45" 283.00' 42.46' LINE TABLE W_ CSRS CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM C4 30'00'00" 77.00' 40.32' -'� ¢ CENTERLINE C5 7156'07" 38.00' 4Z 71' NO. BEARING LENGTH INST. INSTRUMENT C6 143701" 38.00' 9.69' LI N 007746"E 76.07' LS LAND SURVEYOR C7 03'26 50" 85295' 51.32' L2 S 89'42'14"F 40.00' L3 N 885720"E 10.00' O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS L4 S 0007'00" W 32.29' P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT L5 S 1736'02"E 7.64' POR. PORTION L6 N 7552'32"E 4.60' RAD. RADIAL Z C1 L7 S 14 0728"E 55.75' REC. RECORDED zix_.>‘..L5W L8 S 75 52 32" W 5.37' R.S.B. RECORD OF SURVEY GOOK L6 S 44.40?�RAD• L10 S 0 07751" W 43.19' R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY �Ll DETAIL 'A' LIT N 0344'43'E 1.82' RAD.! TP,O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING L12 N 8946Y18" W 9.61' L\ \ \ `j TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO SCALE 11 ------- f PARENT PARCEL ----- CITY BOUNDARY LINE —- ---- CENTERLINE (SHEET 3 OF 3) - - - EASEMENT LINE PROJECT NAME: I M.S. ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA cp Cr'Cr w'C 4. SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.:_ DATE: ®SOikr DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63, n.m.wr,vmwrinwwo.p., CHECKED BY: JH TRES: SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: PLAT TO AccomPAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION Y EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE—HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. 50' 1 40' P.O.C. APN 0229-291-22 CENTERLINE INTERSECTION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOUND MAG NAIL AND WASHER r E NAPA STREET MARKED "L5 6932"PER R.58. S 8942'09"E 90.00' 168/53-63, FLUSH IN (BASIS OF BEARINGS) ASPHALT T.P.O.B. zi l ,(N 89 42'09" W R.S.B. 168/53-63) R/W LINE I R/W LINE S 89'42'09"E 88.48' . 103,37 81 aD'2D" w 1 TEMPORARY © CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT W (686 SO.FT.) ' 1 (0.016 Ac.) Q Q 2866 O.R. 305 0-EASTERLY LINE OF ZREC. 12/12/1951 INST. NO 20010368167 O.R. 1 r—� POR. APN 0229-291-23 RECORDED 8/14/200i 's+ 40' I I 0-GENERALLY LI POR, SECTION 16 INS. NO.S200103 816 O.R. RECORDED 8/14 2001 C.... -1 --I T.1.S., R.6W., S.B.M. / 'L i o-SOUTHERL Y LINE OF CIj ' I INST. NO 20010368167 O.R. + ' 0 RECORDED 8/14/2001 LINE TABLE 61 zz NO. BEARING LENGTH 50' o V i o¢ 40' I 12 LT S 007751" W 33.00' aI pc --`I 1--- L2 N 41'48'30"E 20.70' C , P� i.AND �iOlonm 44 S FFG\ i�"' BASISSEE HEET 2 OF 2 FOR OF BEARINGS, LEGEND, 0 1 EASEMENT NOTE, AND a . 7542 SURVEYOR'S NOTE * * � PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTipN: Q� 0 50 100 \ _ F�� PRELIMINARY 7/7/21 1 OF Cr, ./ SCALE IN FEET TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE (SHEET 1 OF 2) PROJECT NAME: _____ MS.: __ _ ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.:______ CV: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: _ __ DATE: __ © NI SO DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 m.mnomammw+wuc•omeer CHECKED BY: JH TARES:__ l SERIAL NO.: _ FILE NAME: ____ EXHIBIT"B-2"     Page 393 EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE—HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS: EASEMENT NOTE THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ®-PORTION OF 22' WIDE EASEMENT FOR ON THE CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, ROAD PURPOSES GRANTED TO THE BEING N 0077'46" E, AS SHOWN ON COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PER INST. RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN NO. 20000412103, O.R., REC. 11/9/2000 R.S.B. 168/53-63, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. LEGEND (XXXX) INDICATES RECORD DATA PER RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS (R.S.B. 168/53-63) • FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER CSRS CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM CENTERLINE INST. INSTRUMENT LS LAND SURVEYOR O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS P.O.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT POR. PORTION REC. RECORDED R.S.B. RECORD OF SURVEY BOOK R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY T P.O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING \\\\` TEMPORARY 0.O]B nT RUCTION EASEMENT -------- PARENT PARCEL ----- CITY BOUNDARY LINE - --— CENTERLINE EASEMENT LINE SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CRTS EPOCH 2017.50 (NAD83 2011). ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. (SHEET 2 OF 2) PROJECT NAME: . __ M.S.: ----- ORDER NOT. NO.:_—_ CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.:____ DATE: �ouMea cuao�nA 11 lY DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 ®� w®c CHECKED BY: JH TARES: SERIAL NO.: —___ FILE NAME: EXHIBIT "B-2"     Page 394 LAT TO PAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON Y EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. SEE SHEET 2 OF 3 FOR DETAIL 'B' P.O.C. FOUND MAG NAIL AND WASHER SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, CENTERLINE MARKED "LS 6932"PER R.S.B. LEGEND, EASEMENT NOTES, SURVEYOR'S NOTE, INTERSECTION 168/53-63, FLUSH IN ASPHALT DETAIL A, AND LINE AND CURVE TABLES ISEE CITY OF h (BASIS OF BEARINGS) S 44.4027" W h DETAIL 'A' 2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA_ LI (N 0077'46"E R.S.B. 168/53-63) RADA _ ON SHEET 3 -- COUNTY OF-- — O 4 ETIWANDA AVENUE r\SAN BERNARDINO -. I `� O0 R/W LINE \ ,� I - , N 0077 46"E 620.58' C2 W . SEE _N 81 3I'I5"E Lfi IM C1 L4 L3 �© DETAIL 'B' �" _RAD. \ L7 � L5 L— S 82�725;W l y �' I ON SHEET 2 �9'49 09 L9 I RAD t� A' 273.00, C3 L8 Q R' OS NORTHERLY LINE - X C '3 I PERMANENT L�142 OF SECTION 16 �'co x Z o -1! ROAD EASEMENT a a' I T IS, R.6W, S.B.M. z vi W_ `w I I° I (45 SQ_FT.) /ti 5 0 PORTION APN I �I (0.001 Ac.)/g209 2866 O.R. 305 00 c> Dn 0229-291-23 �— 1 I � s�g REC. 12/12/1951 -�I �I, � �� w 33' 33i^),Gy i L1C4 APN 0229-291-22 I III tri N D344 4r'E_RAD. T.P.O.B. ' a_ R=852.95' ' - ` lAt 1 CITY BOUNDARY LINE POR. SECTION 16 I 10 I 1.1._ -- 1-'' POR. APN 0229-291-23 T.1.S., R.6W., S.B.M. , l a 40' 0 11 ‘41‘\- L AND s 0-EASTERLY UNE OF I `O��y S FFr G�� Ik 1 INST. NO. 19970023100 O.R. o 's o 02 I RECORDED 1/23/1997 I i I * ~ No. 7542 22. � U I 2( GENERALLY PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION: .P Q NORTHEASTERLY UNE OF �` `mom 1 o INST. NO. 19970023100 O.R. 9...6. ��' 33 Jr fvy� i RECORDED 1/23/1997 PRELIMINARY ��ZI F of �A��F° 1 k TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE (SHEET 1 OF 3) b R.R. z PROJECT NAME: M.S.: dq ORDER NO.: NOT. NO,: - CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA cp Cr'Cr W'C'. SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: DATE: �_. gum®�® ©' 0 100 200 DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 ,,.1121210r .COMM, SCALE IN FEET CHECKED BY: JH TRES: SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE-HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. T.P.O.B. CITY BOUNDARYLINf /� a /$ APN 0229-291-22 / PERMANENT Zo/ ROAD EASEMENT 0-2/ a/ Lo L. (45 SQ.FT.) �s / o CITY OF cc (0.001 AC.) \ / - il �� RANCHO CUCAMONGA L73 CITY BOUNDARY RANCHO CU OF CAMONGA ___ S 89 46'08"F 151.75' LINE COUNTY OF `‘\\� \\\\\\ 1 C6 COUNTY OF / SAN BERNARDINO L12 N 89 42'09" W 110.00' C7 �__ SAN BERNARDINO k PORTION APN 0229-291-23 0 of- �R/k LINE GENERALLY `cg9) 0 I O-NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF NAPA STREET 1'1 q INST. NO. 19970023100 O.R. RECORDED 1/23/199714 CO 3 -NORTHERLY LINE OF .'�) 1"� INST. NO. 20010368167 O.R. o RECORDED 8/14/2001 DETAIL 'B f NO SCALE SEE SHEET .3 OF 3 FOR BASIS OF BEARINGS, LEGEND, EASEMENT NOTES, SURVEYOR'S NOTE, DETAIL 'A', AND LINE AND CURVE TABLES (SHEET 2 OF 3) PROJECT NAME: M.S.: tro0 ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE CAS SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.:___ DATE: ©E®DSOW DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, R.S.B. 168/53-63 MADOOKDOTZMAZIONAL.COMM CHECKED BY: JH TRES: SERIAL NO.: FILE NAME: _ EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE—HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. BASIS OF BEARINGS: SURVEYORS NOTE.- EASEMENT NOTES THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE o-40' WIDE EASEMENT FOR WATER PURPOSES ON THE CENTERLINE OF E77WANDA AVENUE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 GRANTED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER BEING N 0017'46" E, AS SHOWN ON (CCS83), ZONE 5 GRID, CSRS EPOCH 2O17.50 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PER RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, FILED IN (NAD83 2011). 1308/465. O.R., REC. 11/23/1938 R.S.B. 168/53-63, RECORDS OF SAID ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID, TO OBTAIN -VARIABLE WIDTH EASEMENT FOR ROAD COUNTY. GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964. PURPOSES GRANTED TO KAISER STEEL CORPORA 770N PER 6390/303, O.R. REC. 5/13/1965 LEGEND Co-VARIABLE MOTH AND 10' WIDE EASEMENT CURVE TABLE FOR ROAD AND SEWER PURPOSES GRAN TED (XXXX) INDICATES RECORD DA TA PER RECORD OF SURVEY TO DA VID F. BOLGER, TRUSTEE, PER INST. Tn 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, NO. DELTA RADIUS LENGTH NO. 94-334698, O.R., REC. 8/5/1994 OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS (R.S.B. 168/53-63) 2 • FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED Cl D9'43'27" 193.00' 32.76' C2 2743'31" _ 5.00' 2.42' CT] APN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER C3 08'35'45" 283.00' 42.46' LINE TABLE "i CSRS CALIFORNIA SPATIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM _ C4 30V0'00" 77.00' _ 40.32' W CENTERLINE C5 715607" 38.00' - 4771' NO. BEARING LENGTH W INST. INSTRUMENT C6 1437'01" 38.00' 9.69' LI N 00'1746"E 76.07' LS LAND SURVEYOR C7 032650" 852.95' 51.32' L2 S 89 42'14"E 40.00' L3 N 885720"E 10.00' O.R. OFFICIAL RECORDS L4 S 00V7'OO W 32.29' P.D.C. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT _ L5 S 1736'02"E 764' POR. POR 1l0N - _ L6 N 75 52'32"E 4.60' RAD. RADIAL S L7 S 14 r1728"E 55.75' REC. RECORDED C2 LS C� L8 S 7552'32" W 5.37' R.S.B. RECORD OF SURVEY BOOK L6 S ,�4'4027RAo, Li0 S 00'I7'51 W 43.19' R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY r L7 �-` L 11 N 89 42 09" W 110.00' T.P.O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING DETAIL ;4' L/2 N 0077'47"E 0.09' \\\y PERMANENT ROAD EASEMENT NO SCALE L13 S 89 46'08"E 0.04' 152,508 SF, 1.205 AC L14 S 89'46'08"E 151.75' ------- PARENT PARCEL ----, CITY BOUNDARY LINE —-— CENTERLINE (SHEET 3 OF 3) - — — EASEMENT LINE PROJECT NAME: M.S.: ORDER NO.: NOT. NO.: CITY: N/A COUNTY: SAN BERNARDINO STATE: CA W'6 SURVEYED BY: N/A SCE F.B. REF.: DATE: san�mcuaow� ". ".. E: ME DSO DRAWN BY: DB MAP REF.: RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109. R.S.B. 168/53-63 ...anacwarmaravatwompor CHECKED BY: JH TRES: SERIAL NO.: _ FILE NAME: "tt 0 Z 0 C , O : .: [;„.'4;;,i.' '''.i::,',.0:' , - ,r 4/,, ,,, .\otk„,.., . :,. _ , .. ,. .. k 4 .4i q • U • Cd i',: , Ame ,h ' '1/4?-. '' . 'k.,; ...':',....•..4: ' I(' , ''..t .4 '1 : , .1., fP!' ' ' • • ' ' .,.il. „ ,, r ti • .i; 41 M 1 IM. 0 ;'' • <:( ce LI— UI) 0(1113 ,„ '. pt.. . a i ' . Cl) ›- CL . *-1 '''-4 - • ., 41: , ...... , . , , .• il. :-'' . . . ,, i 1 ,, CM CD _ U . . - - . . ..„ a) . . .,,„ ., ., , . ,,„ . L X. 7''''''' ''';' ' C (11) ' .;' • ' 1 . • • CO MI"P '' '' ' I 1 . , A . , .: .. , „..-„,,,,,..T.,4:\ . , . ,,C 0 X4',\' , . 4\ 4. ' ' CO Z 41) W , , t . :1, , , A. \\ / 7 i ';\ , a) 44_, c., c., c. c., .,, 73 •—„, .., , i 0 , aS 7.'v 'i ' \ ' ,9+ , 1, '• ,, .0,\ • . • • (II) C C\I Si= LEN , ?.L .. r . A 4. . f , ' • , , . . - . • 0 . .' '' , • ,• '. • .t, k , ci,,,,, . i., . , -C2 • , • .. mid°, ;. J. ,,,,, • \ •. ./ ,, M M CitS 3 1 . si ..4S. •-:‘ A 4) . • Alf ' • OM 13 i' , , ler •,,, . .:Ir' . . \,. .•.: 'f' .,,,, : V,,, t• ‘f ' (X, ' 0 / ‘,4 Cl) c . 11110P7 , a) (13 ... .. . . . . , „ ..„ . . I:e k tif ilt#'1" 110' . • . .. • 0 f . It Ad, 10° . . •til .i , ,\ , , •.--- III L ..- LL'i L 0 .._. Public Need Project Location ..I . I I• Almond St — MA RC Project `, wr,son Ave WII,ory rY, \ Banyan St tY pAell :-mR� .. .temonAve 3 .. • Location 4 \ Alta Loma or d ;' Pvvaamrq`T R3711I�iy / / - 210 ` w \ S ! .,Etiwan,is _ ' WeEd WIDI •% 1 _---l k 1 _ -, rl �` I 1 q ( 6 � _ �s align fflalLEM E Lfl � — UP Arrow R� n E DUI SS Mrrit'Ss jersey 61w. Ave 4' Wier 011ye St •A re IS ' • - z r '= zt a ti \' 1 ` I Ia. EIS[ d ^__.. —..g A 1 0 . .PkwY _ - CkClk.6 ,_. - .„. MOO 60o'A _ I _';6pGTT�_ QomREIVOffi , rr r r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Conditions : _ ,, _ _ .....� - ,r`^ 4•,''.'',,-\\s‘-,,.6. - 1 .mac -.,,..-.--1.„.',''''':.,__‘ #..,.0 -0'-0-.g1 ;.;7--7r--:„-.,_,-,„-,-----71-- ,-'-_-_-,...-.'‘I.-----,,4,.1,-4--;-g-----:,,,t*-iA..„.,,-,:m•-.,,,,,Ar .,-_,_-A i.:....., Before/ r e d ��_ 4. ¢e1 r ns.on-- y j�� -M- !icet . \ ., .x' ,rod% -' 1 r .�- c Existing -O ' - - ' -- . r ''� 'a.�', �, ,,�� -a I +�'- J A' .� tea' -_ �, '' t Afteri Proposed* _... ,may y .... - - -. ....„,- - ._ ., . „.,,,,,,-.„. . „.,,,, . •\ \\ 0 ,\ _ - - - .-- - - .....,,,,,, ., :40717' . :N � . .2.7h1'. ...-' 4116UrA- . . - � •r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r 0 ,cic *3D rendering is approximate, subject to final design plans. Public Need Proposed Improvements E of I �uHEOF EDGE OF TECH EWE�OEN EDGE OFDECK ;;;;r 1 in___illallilli Z4',- - ...A.,- ,ORME I ,E.T.7,.,,7;.. R E 1 �LAlill oil 00 0 - a ,a 0 r o a 0 0 naaaox ,w pm -- Loo Lac ---- mar- ate-- -- -- ----- a�----- ate----- � Ft,rnnCSH SHAFT,m ,man GM SHAFT,PIP r Project will include: • Widening of Etiwanda Avenue to 4 lanes • Grade separated railroad crossing • Use of walls, embankments, and bridges • Bicycle and pedestrian improvements • Traffic signals • Utility relocations (r r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Public Need Proposed Improvements The project will result in: • Reduced vehicle and truck delays and queuing. • Improved level of service. • Improved safety for bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. • Improved response time for police, fire, and paramedics. �� , _ cam: ONLY . � .a, tlernel 7 _.,.,_ . r 4 a. EWMiM��® 1 ?artier _ -- , •- ,...„, 1 kilfri rr'1 ,-.11r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r � r tr r r-c(r *3D rendering is approximate, subject to final design plans. Right-Of-WayNeeds . „ i v ,,,,,, , j jl :, , . ,: I .,. 'ir"" .., , . , . . _ ___ . ` ' .... ai 4 ... „2: . ... . . _ ___ ..,,,. ____ .,. :. k Temporary Construction Easement — �, 686 sgft. IIA Etiwanda Ave - _ Edison Parcel -; : APN 0229-291-23 - ...... .. r 1 Permanent Road Easement J . - 45 sgft. ,41 _ .. . - ). _. .,...,•.! ,,,.. _ . ... ... __rivi•wr..,,,.,::.. e:2:.,.., 7.,...,—.,...4 . h a �• ,, Temporary Construction Easement l•t: • ' '11,- Cl) 11 sqft. ° ., • _ l`4 NOT TO SCALE , rrC,-, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Right-Of-WayNeeds ,ii: * ow, , . i, r -'.1 --. "IR . 7:„..._ Y END-2+50.51 W v I J 1.. -� A n Temporary Construction Easement 1-� 686 sqft. IIN 65+00 66+00 5,r 68+00 ... — •1+00 - , IMIIIMM ile _ _ _ _ __ Etiwanda Ave .._ "N'UNE--- Ii ,,, N .. - j I idCW—T—Iiiiraffark. Edison Parcel ® "�"LINEAPN 0229-291-23 wlIN° ., . • .,�. W ®gam m t� QC:202+02 98 -i I ' M '—r+ + F. �� o Permanent Road Easement 0. !a '� 45 Sgft. °t � , +�i y,, Temporary Construction Easement Otr: _ 'Y Z DUI ;... Z _ ,g-- __. ej '* :arm v NOT TO SCALE r�.k. -r' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r Necessary Findings • The public interest and necessity require the project. • The proposed project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. • The subject property interests described in each Resolution of Necessity are necessary for the proposed project. • The City has made an offer as required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to each of the owners of record of the real property it seeks to acquire. inCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Questions (r , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City Manager— Community Development/Interim Planning Director David F. Eoff IV, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1007 A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164 FOR THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTING OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE CIRCULATION NETWORK FOR PLANNING AREA 1B, INCLUSION OF NEW STREET TYPES FOR PLANNING AREA 1B,RELOCATION OF LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1B, REFORMATING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT INTO TWO SECTIONS REGULATING PLANNING AREA 1A AND PLANNING AREA 1B RESPECTIVELY,AND MISCELLANEOUS TEXT EDITS FOR THE DELETION OF INAPPLICABLE REFERENCES, DELETION OF INAPPLICABLE EXHIBITS,AND INCLUSION OF NEW EXHIBITS REFLECTIVE OF THE AMENDMENTS LISTED ABOVE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1007. BACKGROUND: The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular Council meeting of June 15, 2022. Votes at first reading: AYES: Scott, Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael. ABSENT: None ANALYSIS: Please refer to the June 15, 2022 City Council Staff Report. FISCAL IMPACT: Please refer to the June 15, 2022 City Council Staff Report. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Please refer to the June 15, 2022 City Council Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 1007 Attachment 2 — Link_The Resort Specific Plan — PA 1A Attachment 3 — Link_The Resort Specific Plan — PA 1B Page 398 ORDINANCE NO. 1007 A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164 FOR THE RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTING OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE CIRCULATION NETWORK FOR PLANNING AREA 1B, INCLUSION OF NEW STREET TYPES FOR PLANNING AREA 1B, RELOCATION OF LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1B, REFORMATING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT INTO TWO SECTIONS REGULATING PLANNING AREA 1A AND PLANNING AREA 1B RESPECTIVELY, AND MISCELLANEOUS TEXT EDITS FOR THE DELETION OF INAPPLICABLE REFERENCES, DELETION OF INAPPLICABLE EXHIBITS, AND INCLUSION OF NEW EXHIBITS REFLECTIVE OF THE AMENDMENTS LISTED ABOVE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APNS: 0209-272-20; AND ALL APNS INCLUDED IN PARCEL MAP PM14647, TRACT MAP TR20240, A. Recitals. 1. SC Rancho Development Corp., an entity of Lewis Operating Corp., filed an application for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164 as described in the title of this Ordinance. 2. On May 25, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and adopted Resolution No. 22-17 recommending the City Council approve Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164, an amendment to the Resort Specific Plan as described in the title of this Ordinance. 3. On June 15, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and initiated the first reading of Ordinance No. 1007 and making the findings in support thereof. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 15, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property that is currently regulated by The Resort Specific Plan, which is identified as Planning Area 1 and further noted as Planning Area 1A and Planning Area 1B in the Resort Specific Plan, which allows for an infill mixed-use development on the former 160-acre golf course. Attach nq qt 1 b. The applicant has applied for a Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020 00164, requesting an amendment to The Resort Specific Plan to allow modifications to the circulation network, inclusion of the modified street types, shifting location of current land uses/placetypes to accommodate the new circulation network,the separation of the document into two sections regulating Planning Area 1A and Planning Area 1 B, respectively, and miscellaneous text and graphic edits involving revision and/or removal of text, graphics, and other exhibits that are no longer applicable with the proposed amendments SECTION 3: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. The Resort Specific Plan is within the City Center land use designation of the General Plan. The City Center designation is intended to provide for intense concentrations of retail and civic activity, multifamily housing, and employment in a pedestrian-oriented, transit-ready environment. The Resort Specific Plan was amended in 2016 to create Planning Area 1 for the development of a high density walkable mixed-use transit-oriented community. The Specific Plan provides standards and guidelines that regulate various placetypes, offering a variety of housing options at densities that range from 17 units per acre up to 80 units per acre. The proposed amendment includes changes to the circulation network that will improve access into and throughout the subject area using well- deigned streetscapes that provide safe and comfortable environments for bicyclist and pedestrians. The current specific plan coupled with the proposed amendments demonstrates consistency with General Plan policy LC-4.2, which strives to ensure that all new neighborhoods and infill development within or adjacent to existing neighborhoods are complete and well- structured such that the physical layout and land use mix promote walking, biking, and transit uses; LC-4.3, which requires each new increment of residential development to make all possible street and pedestrian connections to adjoining developments; and LC- 4.4, requiring a density ranges and housing types that promote range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood. The current Resort Specific Plan is consistent with these General Plan policies. The proposed amendment will not alter the intent or purpose of The Resort Specific Plan, nor will it change the densities, placetypes, or development program. The amendment will create a stronger consistency to the General Plan with the modified street network and continued use of design standards and guidelines. b. The land use and development regulations of The Resort Specific Plan are comparable to similar zoning regulations within the Development Code. The Resort Specific Plan provides development opportunities through 6 placetypes that offer mixed-use development and residential development in a range of densities and intensities, and a variety of non-residential uses distributed throughout the specific plan area. The placetypes function in the same manner as zones, offering a purpose and intent and development standards to meet the purpose and intent. The General Plan land use designation for the subject site is City Center. Absent the specific plan, the current zoning for the site would likely be Center 2 based on adjacent zoning under the same land use designation. Center 2 encourages mixed-use urban development and infill development that promotes walkability, pedestrian-friendly commercial and residential areas, and adequate scale and intensity of buildings in context of its surroundings. Based on this information, the similarities are comparable between The Resort Specific Plan and the Center 2 zone. The proposed specific plan amendment will not alter the placetypes or modify the purpose and intent of the specific plan. Page 400 c. The administration and permit processes within The Resort Specific Plan are consistent with the administration and permit processes of the zoning code.All development within the specific plan is required to complete design review process in the same manner as described in the Development Code. All projects must demonstrate compliance with the regulations and standards outlined in the specific plan, all projects must demonstrate compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and all projects must receive approval from the appropriate review authority identified in the development code. The Specific Plan includes various references back to the Development code for procedural requirements and administration processes. The proposed specific plan amendment will not alter these procedures or introduce new administration and permit processes. SECTION 4: California Environmental Quality Act a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 associated with the approval and establishment of Section 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, which has now become The Resort Specific Plan. b. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, an Environmental Compliance Memorandum was prepared by T & B Planning. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the approved overall project and the analysis included in the Final EIR identified above, and therefore no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City Council's consideration of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164. c. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not propose substantial changes which will require major revisions to the 2016 specific plan amendment's Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new information of substantial importance was found that would create new significant effects, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, or introduce mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR. d. In accordance with CEQA Section 21166, and Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based on the information provided above, Staff has concluded that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, which would modify the circulation and development pattern for PAIB but will not result in an increase to the amount or type of development allowed within the specific plan, will not result in environmental effects that were not previously analyzed under the certified EIR for the Specific Plan Amendment. e. The City Council has independently reviewed City staff's determination, and based upon the whole record before it, and its independent review and judgement, finds that the Specific Plan amendment is not subject to further environmental review. SECTION 5: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,the City Council hereby approves DRC2020-00164,a request to amend The Resort Specific Plan as described above and in the City Council staff report dated June 15, 2022. Page 401 SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause its publication in accordance with applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July 2022. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 15th day of June 2022, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 20th day of July 2022. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Page 402 Attachment 2— The Resort Specific Plan — Planning Area 1A Due to file size,this attachment can be accessed through the following link: The Resort Specific Plan PA 1A Attachment 2 Page 403 Attachment 3 — The Resort Specific Plan — Planning Area 1 B Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: The Resort Specific Plan PA 1 B Attachment 3 Page 404 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA tr-r- DATE: July 20, 2022 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, Deputy City Manager/Interim Planning Director Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 — WOOD PARTNERS, APPLICANT. The project is a site plan/architectural review for a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non-residential space within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. APNs: 0229-311-14 and -15. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration (RESOLUTION 2022-113) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to approve Design Review DRC2020-00440. BACKGROUND: On April 13, 2022, Design Review DRC2020-00440 for the site plan and architectural review of a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non-residential space went before the Planning Commission for consideration (Attachment 1). On the date of the meeting, correspondence was received from Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility("SAFER") raising concerns related to the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The Planning Commission reviewed the correspondence from Lozeau Drury, LLP, determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project was adequate, and approved Design Review DRC2020-00440. (Attachment 2). On April 20, 2022, an appeal of the Planning Commission approval was received from Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER within the 10-day appeal period. The project site is located on a vacant 5.2-acre site on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. The project is comprised of two 4-story buildings, oriented toward the site's Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue frontages. Both buildings contain an interior courtyard and are separated by a central paseo running north to south along the site. A surface parking lot is situated along the site's southern and eastern boundary, as well as a subterranean parking structure beneath both buildings. The project will have a density of 50 Page 405 dwelling units per acre, which is within the residential density range permitted within the City Corridor High General Plan Designation of 36 to 60 units per acre. ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal and cultural resources, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period which started on September 1, 2021 and ended on October 1, 2021, and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City received a letter from Lozeau Drury LLP, Mitchell Tsai Attorney at Law, and the Inland Empire Biking Alliance during the public comment period. Responses to these comments were incorporated in a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was recirculated from February 8, 2022, through February 28, 2022. Letters were received from the Cucamonga Valley Water District and Mitchel Tsai, Attorney at Law during the recirculation period. Responses to these comments have been prepared and included in the response to comments section of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. The recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration shows the applicant's commitment to ensuring the environmental impacts are addressed. Staff believes the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses all potential environmental impacts and has incorporated the necessary mitigations to minimize such impacts. The appellant's (Lozeau Drury, LLP) appeal letter (Attachment 3) contains the same information as the correspondence received during the public comment period of the projects first circulation of the MND. The appeal letter asserts that the prepared MND was inadequate. The applicant has provided a response letter(Attachment 4)to address the comments discussed in the appeal. The appellant's comments and the applicant's responses are summarized below. A. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts. Response: The comment ignores the current 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24) which regulates formaldehyde in new construction, which all new construction must adhere to. The appellant cites an outdated study of indoor air quality within single family homes, not multi-family apartments ("HENGH Study"). Formaldehyde emissions are already addressed by the Project's compliance with current residential building standards. SAFER claims that the Final MND failed to consider the increased cancer risk due to the Project's location adjacent to certain roadways and uses. The Final MND and associated technical studies consider whether the Project would exacerbate air emissions from mobile sources in the Project vicinity, including the roadways. The Project's daily fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations would be far below the Southcoast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) applicable regional and local significance thresholds. The Final MND's technical analyses and prevailing regulatory guidance indicate that no further risk analysis is warranted for those roadways and uses beyond what was already Page 2 Page 406 analyzed in the MND. B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife. Response: The appellant claims that there is a possibility of special status species in the Project site. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which commented on the draft MND, did not criticize how the reconnaissance field survey was conducted or its conclusion that the Project has no potentially adverse impacts to wildlife. The Final MND concluded that special-status species were unlikely to occur onsite because no such habitat was observed during the survey. Additionally, ongoing intrusive human activity such as traffic and domestic animals occur within the project vicinity. SAFER also claims that the Final MND fails to address the Project's capacity to cause to habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation cannot occur without the presence of wildlife migration corridors, and no such corridors exist within the Project site or vicinity. Potentially significant effects on wildlife as a result of collisions cannot occur unless the species are present. The Project site is located in a highly urbanized environment with heavy traffic, and thus the Project will not change already existing conditions. The applicant will be required to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats per the Final MND. Pre-construction surveys are industry standard mitigation measures that California courts and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have found adequately protect against impacts to wildlife resources, particularly where there is a very low likelihood, but not an impossibility, that a resource may be present. C. The IS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project's Air Quality Impacts. Response: The Final MND's modeling used Project-specific information for the above categories based on the Project's design or required compliance with regulatory requirements, which is more logical than SAFER's proposal so that the Project's impacts, if any, can be addressed. SAFER's air quality and GHG consultant does not provide any justification or facts supporting why the default inputs would better further CEQA's goal of reducing environmental impacts than Project-specific data. D. An Updated Air Model Analysis Is Needed to Determine Whether the Project Will Have a Significant Air Quality Impact. Response: The appellant claims that the Draft MND's air model analysis needs to be redone because it initially only reported winter daily emissions. The difference between summer and winter emissions is nominal and does not change the Final MND's conclusion that the Project's emissions are far below the regional SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants. E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. Response: SAFER asserts that the Final MND should have included an operational health risk analysis ("HRA") to assess the Project's potential to emit diesel particulate matter ("DPM"). The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency that regulates air quality Page 3 Page 407 in the Project's air basin, does not require residential land use projects to prepare operational HRAs because such projects do not involve mobile or stationary sources of substantial toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. Because an operational HRA is inapplicable to the Project, the Final MND was not required to perform or discuss one. F. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact. Response: Regarding health impacts during construction, the Final MND includes an inhalation-pathway HRA to analyze exposures to DPM during construction in accordance with 2015 OEHHA HRA guidelines and utilizing the Project's specific construction schedule and equipment inventory. The HRA found that the Project would not cause DPM emissions during construction which pose TAC-related health concerns for nearby sensitive receptors. G. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Response: SAFER claims that the Final MND's GHG quantitative analysis should have used the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD)2035 efficiency target for its significance threshold rather than SCAQMD's recommended screening threshold which the Final MND used. The screening threshold used for the Final MND's GHG analysis is the current threshold recommended by SCAQMD, the expert agency in charge of permitting and enforcement related to air pollution. The appellant also claims the Final MND should have included analysis of the Project's consistency with the performance standards in CARB's Scoping Plan and Southern California Association of Government's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Reliance on SCAQMD's screening threshold, however, which showed the Project will not cause significant GHG impacts, precludes the need for further GHG analysis. H. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact. Response: The appellant does not provide any explanation or support or point to any specific information in the Final MND or Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment that it believes shows a significant noise impact or the insufficiency of the proposed mitigation. SAFER's failure to support their argument with any evidentiary basis or citation to the record is fatal to their claim. Staff has reviewed the appellant's comments and the applicant's responses and determined that the Final MND adopted by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2022 adequately addresses all potential environmental impacts and has incorporated the necessary mitigations to minimize such impacts. No further environmental review for the project is necessary. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to approve Design Review DRC2020-00440. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has submitted a Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by AECOM, dated July 8, 2021. The Fiscal Impact Analysis concluded that the project would produce an annual recurring surplus Page 4 Page 408 to the General Fund, which gradually increases over a 20-year span. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed mixed-use development will help achieve the City Council Core Values of providing and nurturing a high-quality life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, and a continuous pursuit of improvement. It is the City Council's vision to make Foothill Boulevard the City's mixed-use corridor, featuring a variety of urban developments that will enable a vibrant, walkable neighborhood that residents, workers, and visitors can enjoy. The proposed mixed-use project fits in this vision. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits Attachment 2 — Planning Commission Resolution 22-09 Attachment 3— Lozeau Drury, LLP Appeal Letter dated April 20, 2022 Attachment 4 —Applicant Response Letter dated May 31, 2022 Attachment 5— City Council Resolution 2022-113 Page 5 Page 409 r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA tr-r DATE: April 13, 2022 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, Deputy City Manager— Community and Economic Development/Interim Planning Director INITIATED BY: Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner SUBJECT: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE — WOOD PARTNERS — A request to construct a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non-residential space within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District. APNs: 0229-311-14 and - 15. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. Design Review DRC2020-00440. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action: • Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and approve Design Review DRC2020-00440. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A request to construct a 260-unit mixed use development with a total of 3,339 square feet of commercial space at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. BACKGROUND: The 5.2-acre project site is located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue (Exhibit A - Aerial). The dimensions of the rectangular-shaped property are approximately 330 feet north to south and 690 feet east to west. The site gently slopes from north to south and is covered by low vegetation. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Corridor High Mixed-Use Urban Corridor(MU-UCR) District 1 North Vacant City Corridor High Mixed-Use Urban Corridor(MU-UCR) District 1 South Single-Family Residences Low Residential Low(L) Residential District East Single-Family Residences Low Residential _ Low(L) Residential District West Shopping Center General Commercial Regional Related Commercial (RRC) District 1 1 -Foothill Boulevard Overlay District,Subarea 4 PROJECT ANALYSIS: A. General: The project is comprised of two 4-story buildings. Building 1 is located at the westerly half of the site and is oriented towards the corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Building 2 is on the Attach rlt 1 site's easterly half and is oriented towards Foothill Boulevard. Both buildings contain an interior courtyard and are separated by a central paseo running north to south (Exhibit B — Site Plan). A surface parking lot is proposed along the site's southern and eastern boundary, as well as a subterranean parking structure beneath both buildings. The project will have a density of 50 dwelling units per acre,which is within the residential density range permitted within the City Corridor High General Plan Designation of 36 to 60 units per acre. B. Architecture: The two buildings are inspired by the Spanish architectural style. Design features such as arches, towers, pergolas, fabric awnings, and S-tile roofs consistent with the Spanish architectural vernacular are applied throughout the two buildings. Building materials include stucco, fabric, and a fiber cement board material that is meant to evoke the appearance of wood. These building materials are applied throughout all building elevations, resulting in "360-degree architecture" (Exhibit C — Elevations and Renderings). The buildings also incorporate large tower elements at the northwest and northeast corners that outset from the rest of the building plane and feature pitched roofs and arched windows to enhance the visual interest. These towers emphasize verticality and provide a sense of architectural importance, especially at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. Horizontal articulation along the building plane as well as vertical articulation along the building's roofline breaks down the building massing and creates architectural interest. C. Unit Composition and Floor Plans: There are 259 residential units proposed (184 one-bedroom units, 55 two-bedroom units, 20 three-bedroom units), as well as 1 live-work unit. The live-work apartment is a one-bedroom, two-story unit, with a total of 816 square feet of commercial-ready space. Additionally, the project also proposes two true-commercial units. These two commercial units and the live-work unit are located on the project's first-story frontage along Foothill Boulevard, at the northeast corner of Building 1 and the northwest corner of Building 2. The total commercial square footage for the project including the live-work unit is 3,339 square feet. Floor to ceiling storefront glass is incorporated along the entire façade of the two commercial units and the live work unit in order to emphasize the non-residential nature of these spaces. D. Recreation Amenities: Resident amenities include a business center, gym, a pool/spa, an open grass recreation area, a children's play area, a common fireplace, and a fenced dog run. A central pedestrian paseo running north to south is also proposed between the two buildings. This pedestrian paseo features various seating and patio furniture. A publicly accessible pocket park is also proposed between the two buildings, towards the northerly portion of the project site (Exhibit D —Amenities Exhibit) E. Fencing and Access: One of the key focal points emphasized throughout the General Plan emphasizes is connectivity and creating complete neighborhoods with each new increment of residential development. The proposed project has managed to implement these characteristics to the best extent possible, giving the current site conditions and constraints. The most notable is the ungated circulation throughout the project. The surface parking lot, which extends from Etiwanda Avenue along the south property to Foothill Boulevard along the east property line is ungated. Additionally, the central paseo between the two buildings will also be ungated. The only exceptions will occur at the entrance to the subterranean parking structure, and at the private resident courtyards. Aside from these areas, the project will include an open circulation design for pedestrians and vehicles that will help facilitate strong connectivity and permeability throughout the site. The open circulation will also assist with improving emergency access to the site to better serve the safety needs of the community. Page 2 of 6 Page 411 The project will also include two new 6-foot-high decorative perimeter block walls along the south and the east property lines between the project site and the existing single-family neighborhoods. Along the south and east property lines there are es currently a variety of wood fences and chain link fences. Insome instances there are gaps where no fencing exists. Replacing this fencing with new block walls will provide an improvement along the rear yards of the adjacent residential properties (Exhibit E —Wall and Fence Plan). F. Compliance with Technical Development Standards: The project was deemed complete on May 12, 2021. This occurred prior to the City Council's adoption on September 1, 2021 of interim development standards for Mixed Use zoning districts. These interim standards ultimately became effective on October 15, 2021. Therefore, the development standards in effect for Mixed Use zoning districts prior to October 15, 2021, are applied to this project. As demonstrated in the table below, the project complies with all Development Code requirements effective at the time the project was deemed Complete. COMPLIANCE TABLE Development Standard Required Proposed Complies Building Setback— Foothill (Major) 11'-3" min. 29'-6" YES Parking Setback— Foothill (Major) 7'-6" min. 32'-9" YES Landscape and Wall Setback—Foothill 11'-3" min. avg. 34'-7" avg. YES (Major) 7'-6" min. 26'-6" Min Building Setback— Etiwanda (Tertiary) 8'-9" 17' YES Parking Setback— Etiwanda (Tertiary) 6'-3" 35' YES Landscape and Wall Setback—Etiwanda 8'-9" min. avg. 17' avg. YES (Tertiary) 6'-3" min. 17' min. Interior Side Setback 20' 102' YES Interior Rear Setback 25' 77' —3" YES Building Height 75' max., 25' within 100' of 59'-8" max, 25' within YES residential 100' of residential Landscape Area 10% 14.2% YES Open Space 150 sf/unit 48,350 sf YES (39,000 sf) G. Parking: Per the Development Code, the project is required to provide 528 parking spaces with 280 of the spaces required to be covered (i.e., in a garage or carport). Previous iterations of the project, including the version that was presented to the Design Review Committee (see Section I of this report) and at neighborhood meetings (see Section J of this report) included a request for a 12% reduction in the on- site parking requirement subject to the review and approval of a Minor Exception application. A 12% reduction would result in the project providing 465 parking spaces. Of this number of parking spaces, 265 would have been provided in an underground garage. The outcome of this reduction would have been a parking deficiency of 63 spaces. Following the Design Review Committee and neighborhood meetings, the applicant in coordination with City staff, responded to the concerns about the parking by revising the proposal and expanding the capacity of the underground parking structure by 63 spaces. This revision results in the project now complying with all parking requirements described in the Development Code. The project now provides all 528 parking spaces with 328 of the spaces being covered. As the reduction in the on-site parking requirement is no longer proposed, the associated application for the Minor Exception has been withdrawn from consideration. The table below summarizes the parking calculation for the project. Page 3 of 6 Page 412 PARKING ANALYSIS Number Square Parking Ratio of Units Footage Required Parking Multi-family unit 184 N/A 1.5 per unit 276 (one bedroom) (1 in garage or carport) Multi-family unit 55 N/A 2 per unit 110 (two bedrooms) (1 in garage or carport) Multi-family unit 20 N/A 2 per unit 40 (three bedrooms) (2 in garage or carport) Live-Work 1 816 1.5 per unit 2 (1-bedroom units) (1 in garage or carport) _ Visitor parking 260 N/A 1 per 3 units 87 Commercial (including 2 3,339 4 per 1,000 13 Live-Work portion) Total Parking Spaces Required/Provided 528/528 Total Garage Parking Spaces Required/Provided 280/328 The project has adequate parking for all proposed uses, as it meets all parking required by the Development Code. In order to ensure that on-site parking is properly managed, the applicant has provided a Parking Management Plan (Exhibit F—Parking Management Plan). This Parking Management Plan outlines how residential, guest, and commercial parking spaces are assigned, and details enforcement actions that apartment management can take in response to any potential parking violations. Furthermore, in the event that there are problems or concerns with parking, a Condition of Approval has been added to the project which allows the City to reserve the right to require the preparation of off-site, on-street parking restrictions such as, but not limited to, signs indicating no parking, signs indicating time- restricted parking, red curbing the adjacent streets, any necessary street repairs/improvements, or the establishment of a parking district at the cost of the property owner/developer. Staff believes the applicant has been diligent in addressing the parking concerns by meeting the parking requirements, additionally, with the inclusion of the parking management plan, Staff believes there are adequate tools to address any parking related concerns in the future. The Parking Management Plan and parking study have been reviewed by the Planning Department and Engineering Services Department. H. Public Art: This project is required to provide public art as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Based on the number of residential units and commercial square footage for this project, the total art value required per Section 17.124.020.C. is $198,339. A condition has been included pursuant to the Development Code that requires the public art requirement to be fulfilled prior to occupancy. I. Design Review Committee: The project was first reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC — Williams and Guglielmo) on June 1, 2021. During this meeting, the committee expressed concerns regarding the project's recreational amenities, the amount of commercial square footage (floor area), building articulation, the reduction in parking, and community outreach (Exhibit G — DRC minutes 06/01/2021). The Committee voted to require the project to go through a second round of Committee review to ensure that the applicant had addressed the concerns expressed by the Committee. On July 20, 2021, the project returned for the requested follow-up review by the Committee. Revised project plans which included a modified color palate to break up the building massing, a revised amenities list which incorporates a dog park and a tot lot, and an increase in the square footage for commercial space were presented to the Committee. The Committee was pleased with the applicant's Page 4 of 6 Page 413 responsiveness to the Committee's comments and voted to move the project forward as proposed to the full Planning Commission for consideration (Exhibit H — DRC minutes 07/20/2021). J. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was conducted for the project via teleconference on March 30, 2021. The meeting was held virtually in compliance with State and San Bernardino County Health Department's restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting had 11 attendees. Attendees asked questions about the project's entitlement process and potential parking impacts to the surrounding single-family neighborhood. One attendee expressed their opposition to the development due to the parking overflow that the project may cause to the single-family neighborhood directly south of the project site. With the lifting of pandemic restrictions on physical gathering, a second neighborhood meeting was conducted at the project site on August 9, 2021. This neighborhood meeting occurred in-person to provide nearby residents a better understanding of the project in relation to the project site. This was also another opportunity for the residents to express their opinion on the development prior to the Planning Commission hearing. There was a total of 13 participants in attendance at this meeting. Several residents expressed concerns regarding the potential overflow parking issues from the project that may arise in the surrounding single-family neighborhood. There were also discussions regarding the potential loss of views and privacy on the single-family lots immediately adjacent to the development. Additionally, a few residents expressed the need for the project to provide publicly accessible amenities that serve not only the renters of the apartment complex, but also the surrounding community. In response to residents' concerns regarding publicly accessible amenities, the applicant agreed remove the gate immediately south of the proposed pocket park along Foothill Boulevard, making the pedestrian paseo between Buildings 1 and 2 publicly accessible. A publicly accessible bocce ball court along the parkway adjacent to Foothill Boulevard has also been incorporated. As discussed in the parking section of the staff report (see Section G of this report), in response to the comments received during these meetings, the applicant also expanded the capacity of the underground parking garage by enlarging it to allow for an additional 63 parking spaces. These modifications enabled the project to meet the parking requirements of the Development Code. Additionally, the applicant also reiterated their commitment to strictly enforcing the Parking Management Plan, which includes requiring all residents to list the exact number of cars in their possession and advising guests to not park off-site, in an effort to mitigate any adverse parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. CEQA DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal and cultural resources, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period which started on September 1, 2021 and ended on October 1, 2021, and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City received a letter from Lozeau Drury LLP, Mitchell Tsai Attorney at Law, and the Inland Empire Biking Alliance during the public comment period. Responses to these comments were incorporated in a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was recirculated from February 8, 2022, through February 28, 2022. Letters were received from the Cucamonga Valley Water District and Mitchel Tsai, Attorney at Law representing the Southwest Regional Council of Page 5of6 Page 414 Carpenters during the recirculation period. Responses to these comments have also been prepared and included in the final response to comments section of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff believes the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses all potential environmental impacts and has incorporated the necessary mitigations to minimize such impacts. The recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration further shows the applicant's commitment to ensuring the environmental impacts are addressed. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. To date, no written correspondence, phone calls, or in person inquiries have been received regarding the project notifications. As required by Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), the City submitted Tribal Consultation Requests to the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indian following a completeness determination for the project. The notices were mailed out on January 20, 2021 and provided for a 30-day comment period ending on February 20, 2021. On June 15, 2021,the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians responded to the notice and requested that mitigation measures related to archeological/cultural resources be incorporated into the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. These mitigation measures were incorporated in the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. On the same day, the City also received correspondence from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation requesting for consultation. The City responded to the consultation request but received no response from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. Therefore, standard Mitigation Measures provided by Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation that were incorporated on previous developments within the City were incorporated into the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. COUNCIL MISSION /VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This project supports the City Council goal related to the completion of the General Plan and Housing Element by implementing a project that incorporates the vision and many goals and objectives of the General Plan. Additionally, the project meets several City Council core values by providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere, and promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all. The General Plan anticipates the Foothill Boulevard becoming a vibrant, walkable environment including a variety of uses and activities for all to enjoy. The proposed project fits this vision of the General Plan.. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Aerial Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Elevations and Renderings Exhibit D - Amenities Exhibit Exhibit E - Wall and Fence Plan Exhibit F - Parking Management Plan Exhibit G - DRC minutes 06/01/2021 Exhibit H - DRC minutes 07/20/2021 Exhibit I - Draft Resolution 22-07 of Approval Exhibit J - Conditions of Approval Exhibit K - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Program Page 6of6 Page 415 AERIAL A e•rIII ..r i CaminoR�I .J7f1P : ill ,,,,,,,,,.....r . i, ... ;,,, ,, ,,..,._. ,,..„,. ,. . , ,i, . 4... _ , , .,#. r, • jr iM Nam.+ I. I r- is s Z PO. ti. gap n it.Inr,Dwitiovip sit- , pi. Igi L. . . , ,.. . . . itip MD__ d places ,.r--+--ter'" ► AI. a «r�.r}.....a% • oo rail - a. . ' a:0 : . ik.7 -,.. tl •7A .. '131.G ji43Q t "pa r ;Town agaeAtU ..uors I. t ! ‘ . ' 04 4.44 i .1 i • . TZAR.b`ehverY ., `.r' .. ,� aL.. .oth'ill Blvd" W Historic RteCo ® raclhill Blvd rr. C� 3G]3{�3 �n7 t c Blvd Foothill Blvd W_Hiaioric.Rte fib . .. r 1� Asia BON..' '�— y I m.. - i[�e4 -+ fl�nnO Ha anan BBQ r t t 44 [ Dun awards nis 1 ✓ I.tier. T&eau[ " ve Y i I rn Y `� f Rund.,,re ern ngu Y• , '�_ _ :, - ' ' .a'"`-- PROJECT SITE ''!'� `.rr.�`.L1,► i' ice+ 'Y { Iw`11. +MaiRr ` I' . till iiirtlic14..it , g Ja 0ngJarrfa_'Saln .� e •Iff rr a.r ,, * ♦ ,. �' 1/1/4$ _�� 3► 0. c. Tak iNo IkloSk �Y/�ho Lusamanga 4t i chestnut Ayer ches nut noe ChesNutq`� I. 41f ., IL,,,,..ri ., , "if 1111 .. • ..s 1)1;.. - ,.. i., ... - - i 4 .11 ...: - it -,,faii 42 4. •:_. 4., lb L 3 . r am • E i , � .,. 1: in _ �., � ` 1 t l"� t •.t r .Q , • (Qir Imo# '-.1116 i�� `'� +' �a �� .* _ Exhibit A —. Foothill Blvd --► --► —► --a.- —• —► sloe YAARD —il. SETBACK .�- S. �. �---._. ----_yam.---- - ---- — a -- ;t x' 1 ini a 91t� /, t 1. s +•}� s n r *itt. 4 • jtB1 iirf 1: Bialt C21aft � h 170 —A3IA3 � Ilt I12 I. .��'IS�I I �/ ® ,4 FIR, 5fli 1111 E li b 41;, OEM, . 'AIL J - {iiiiL L a Gr .3 r �• 91 P.. tia LobbyfpL 1 1 -. — .. " •,..•: Ip'q'®LVI1 .,� .....�Levi I ® ;;Al AI.II I ifi �� a. Ele V1 \ IV LV 1 1 w'i 9 1[• (B5ov) I� _ { \ Ill�ilu 1�1 -A3-! �..., 11A2 - ��1 ji —. f n I y 1 ! A L • -■IF A2.. , B1 - Iunwl1 ) _ ` t, �i ✓ .., 1 Illt _Air Mg _�� A II I I . zero J Aii I III- ffi � ..'-� � r Courtyard i 1 I _' ,� • 1a'-o^ ��.ala ' / ' A3a L�•l y�-,+ 11.�1 A N�'. .:92•-2 I'-" l��Ul lyard W*11 ArmA IIIII.I�I A3 a..� � 7. t , Ir.IN �. # 25'x60' Ala-alt hTi•.�, 1 IA .171 ti I�leII . Bt I �. • _ ,, ;. • • r I N.W.E.-• L. loF BiKe_j Ir Ala-alt 3 (I�.�, oo � z Courtyard , a' WHIM I , " pf 1 i MEN LLJ • a.. i"_I��f.✓ ±90'x 104' �� It�lt�I�l If a I � ��11- t �I �. .�tnllR` i1T` _ .y�� ' - h h �Iliaal 5` `,.ria — �t�t I -I�h� ' ', " it , �al f' —� �. ! f la•-'Bt 1flIJJ 1 A3 �— 1 .� -I�NI I��':w, za'a'_ cz If ^' 1 �j7.. —Ic '%I • gyi ii,:l. Bt {as ° '_��I =-.i:_:. .�t��A. r..1.� ��ll „ A1-1 AbOV 2 y Hatch indicates area included in common —� Mit ( „ �II� i' open space.minimum 6'x 15'tlimenslon Building 2 CII a1. JiL ��. {n_- 42"High Wall ■l $E 4 I Building I 1 ±200 Surface Barking Garage Wall Line Below _ -�I 1D'3 (27 Tandem Sta s) ., yCri q d v Min.10'Land-‘'.ye Retaining d I" •92' Buffer B Wall co Site Plan-Ground Level Exhibit B Al 1 v +o�� JANUARY 11,2022 PREPARED FOR: WOOD PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee -__ ,., `,w a 11849 W.Olympic Boulevard Suite 204 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 Los Angeles,CA 90064 ..c.)+..."..................e.,.. 0 r i Building 2 Paseo o O 0 O O 0 ar:r Ei Er r Vi Ietf:� ` r . umant �:...m• - 'n•9 2 a �._ I� Y.I - u DEI `� y a!" �� I I t� r1 r � ! r_, � E _ 'mI �l o 'mI ❑❑ ❑❑ • - r in -- + II T SHOP 16. . I I m - - ,I II 11 c -1.1� rr R L�I � m Iwot F n 1 Conceptual North Elevation-Foothill Boulevard r -Fir i ir i Building 2 fi Paseo r Building 1 t..... O 010•rat y,Pgl�st as a as OaeM2L- ww QR� C , -., . A r iiik m ale l� 1_, r I! La 17k,A t o '.:,''I g a._ -- r 1 r-_ �, II. . 6. . 11 -i- r l �I�' - rye ,M =ova .r �� ■1 — 111311SSTr,FEE IP ton s, yk Conceptual North Elevation-Foothill Boulevard a g � ' 9)Exterior Building Materials CO1 Exterior Cement Plaster 4 Aluminum Storefront System 7 Metal Railing 10 Fiber Cement Board&Batten 13 Metal Downspout Conceptual Elevations CD 2 Concrete Tile Roofing 5 Trim w/ECP Finish 8 Metal Canopy 11 Planter Wall 14 Metal Blade Sign 3 3 Vinyl Window System 8 Metal Screed 9 Wood Trellis 12 Metal Scupper 15 Plaster Finished Overhang 16 Fabric Awning Note:All signage,including monument signs,are under a separate sign permit CO JANUARY 11,NM PREPARED FOR WOOD PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee =yam"" 11849 W.Olympic Boulevard Suite 204 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 VAr. use ovaxo.vooat.mtow__ Los Angeles,CA 90064 •._.,.._*�.......,.. .:.. .:.,.. Exhibit C -1.....:-...—,,..-__ �yLa-_ , Building 1 Paseo Building2 .. I rr IIIIIIIIIIIIII II ❑, mii • ;i r r uuuluu9ll � IdW NI of r.'� -- _ it �+;2i' 1 yll vl I ti a r gi.i. R... 0 1 , v.'P, . , .--.'" z't.,,,, :'', w I ' Nas 't gim jimmairl iliiiiiii , 1 - ® s% Conceptual South Elevation-Parking lir- o Building 2 - 3. , . f.4„,, 0 0_.. ® ® ® •.— , -.— , __, _ __N i rrilF k i ❑❑ �ll., _�l1 ruu umuuluounllM r r rwt nII d;I 91 I1111011IMI_ F r r I nllmor uou r II 17 z _ ,4 _ r it — in �.ill in .0 4,- � � � �� [Ti � �J I � I t� � tr ry t.RAy, ,,,,.f1 I II iii '.! I FIT r f-. lulu`. �' in rrl in , AAA:+'. ortir,11711 L.1 . 7 L. E II T., L . _ . Rti k1 ?Oran.Flr it A 1 Conceptual South Elevation-Parking 1 1 _ala_ Ali.: 111 D)Exterior Building Materials CO1 Exterior Cement Plaster 4 Aluminum Storefront System 7 Metal Railing 10 Fiber Cement Board&Batten 13 Metal Downspout Conceptual Elevations CD 2 Concrete Tile Roofing 5 Trim w/ECP Finish 8 Metal Canopy 11 Planter Wall 14 Metal Blade Sign .1.,3 Vinyl Window System 6 Metal Screed 9 Wood Trellis 12 Metal Scupper 15 Plaster Finished Overhang A O 16 Fabric Awning /�+�v (4 JmuxRv n,mu PREPARED FOR: WOOD PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee — ""' 11849 W.Olympic Boulevard Suite 204 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 VAN.rnBuitc,BANVAND&SODNISPACH,AA Los Angeles,CA 90064 ........*.....r..,..•.......... © m O O o 0 { � INm D _ -- -- — i_ 1 7—i I ,„,„, r Ill,,,,,ll,„JI "'"- R'R , y IINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,IIIII , a �. lP m-1ul. Illu .., Fri in _ Fn°MFI �fi ©❑ DE n Fri ,m ?: . IL-. r 1 I IMINIwiWilll r -,. ,. , - ��" ' , . l l lI� MIDI IllluluulllullI g ill Illullulullullill 7yr,1 .. _ . t = immobi. sma— •0 il I r . —r� �I III mwlilll�ll IIIII mold NI s� tlll kWi.1 l - r IP ' -11r .11 r. Lelevation"°"°""""0°°°°"°°r 0 Co m Building 1 Conceptual West Elevation-Etiwanda Avenue I ® v I S. it 4 .1 T 5;. Pam. 0 F - I b a N a c aoor 0 , II, t Alk I ►\\N \\�\'i '1m�I III V I z\\� rb IIIIII II�I!Ir.��II, r r ,r, gi i q r ham ,IIIIIIIII Im IN Lrl El III IIIII nll IIIIIIIII Illy l llxlli1111 I ;, • _:,. •-•,t .. ••• - Ami.1 r 1 1-T rrl i_i ?..y 'yi � ❑E IN" —__ .a aid l..i + _ h I in fir. �J,�I � i� � Sand Row - o — I . w - AL Building 2 Conceptual East Elevation-Parking t1)Exterior Building Materials CO 1 Exterior Cement Plaster 4 Aluminum Storefront System 7 Metal Railing 10 Fiber Cement Board&Batten 13 Metal Downspout Conceptual Elevations CD 2 Concrete Tile Roofing 5 Trim w/ECP Finish 8 Metal Canopy 11 Planter Wall 14 Metal Blade Sign .1..3 Vinyl Window System 6 Metal Screed 9 Wood Trellis 12 Metal Scupper 15 Plaster Finished Overhang e IV 16 Fabric Awning 0 JANUARv 11,2022 PREPARED FOR: 1 WOOD PARTNERS R" .`..•. Rancho Cuvee "",,,,,„ 11849 W.Olympic Boulevard Suite 204 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 ',wP,. .Ro.-:oo'r.a��w_. Los Angeles,CA 90084 °,*.++•.......N,.° -o..,°„ n Pan. ti Rao 11111 E.E, �, s.-� �... -IL..-� I r 'r wwmm ml I Ills Ti - I ,6 :14. ,. -' ,- '. M } 1 uuu m . ' . E. istimi A m 171 1 IT ,onuruuo �rl ou imi� nui wiwn ni r —IrI `, 40 7 rn lir: n N k r . a Building 1 Conceptual East Elevation-Paseo _ Ir TOF 1T ill Tir lir lIT' llepr J , PP.nut MH m m � ,m onlnnn, r '1M E it-, 1 ; i. MEEF t FT p ii- i Fp r 1.i. -,4, L. i * 71 ■M n r Fr L 'Pi P Ell n 1464 ,...., Building 2 Conceptual West Elevation-Paseo fl)Exterior Building Materials CO 1 Exterior Cement Plaster 4 Aluminum Storefront System 7 Metal Railing 10 Fiber Cement Board&Batten 13 Metal Downspout Conceptual Elevations CD 2 Concrete Tile Roofing 5 Trim w/ECP Finish 8 Metal Canopy 11 Planter Wall 14 Metal Blade Sign .1.,3 Vinyl Window System 6 Metal Screed 9 Wood Trellis 12 Metal Scupper 15 Plaster Finished Overhang e 10 IV 16 Fabric Awning .uwuARv ir,mu PREPARED FOR: POW WOOD PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee — c4 11849 W.Olympic Boulevard Suite 204 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 x a.o ow.-A : .a�x Au Los Angeles,CA 90084 �.�..+.u*•....-...a,...- o..,�,. ,! 111@ F llnlllllllll r Illllli IIIIIIIIIII IIII II111 i _III P r II 111111111114 s • In �� - ' �� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i IE. III iii I • IIIIIIIIIII Illlllllmll,llllill [ 1 ....,1,, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII "' _ m in _Al i' I h .rn m imi el ii IA y$,a r + - ,lll,„„,„„lllllli rr IIIIIIIIIII I rll r ko Building 1 Conceptual Elevation-West Courtyard Wall Building 1 Conceptual Elevation-North Courtyard Wall r F ilk 11=11 L ripnivii iiir O PAnoN R III0 C 1 glllllll. r III o eFwANfl _.. � pr1mi _ L, IIIIIIIIICIIIIIIIIIII A „„ in F -ilr' P i ITI in M'iW%IL �� __ _ a r rs wee Fv :3: e a A ,Ground Fit i Building 1 Conceptual, ation-South Courtyard Wall l_ Building 1 Conceptual Elevation-East Courtyard Wall 11.1 11)Exterior Building Materials CO 1 Exterior Cement Plaster 4 Aluminum Storefront System 7 Metal Railing 10 Fiber Cement Board&Batten 13 Metal Downspout Conceptual Elevations (D 2 Concrete Tile Roofing 5 Trim w/ECP Finish 8 Metal Canopy 11 Planter Wall 14 Metal Blade Sign .1.,3 Vinyl Window System 6 Metal Screed 9 Wood Trellis 12 Metal Scupper 15 Plaster Finished Overhang All IV 16 Fabric Awning IV PREPARED FOR. WOOD PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee - '.% 11849 W.Olympic Boulevard Suite 204 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 µ oa .ANV.ao.SODERBERCH,MA Los Angeles,CA 90084 �.�.�+........7..a,.o.........,�. 1 I I — �r _.. ,t'I oii � IIIIIIIII """munonl umi mmnmiui mmm mmmiu 11mmoi', �I � 'I i.j.. uwuonmiu II r— minor �unowwra mmm��._. Am PI. MI a 4 Ir I . wool r ill,. � Li� ' 111111111111111 1111111Iw F'� II V Illlllllidilllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illlllllllullllllllll w'ml �� IIu wow PI II _�iiwu�. uruol i� ��w�� kr— im wiwwm mu iwwim inu uww�. nwwo __ �� ll E Fri ,, C7- ..,,, , .,.._,,E .p.ii n r -., Ill I Building 2 Conceptual Elevation-West Courtyard Wall - Building 2 Conceptual Elevation-North Courtyard Wall F Y Y low -mir ...firT F T T T WI "V III i iD PoIBMr '11 il. -76. • i„,,„. A _ r S @, F MFl ,,, 11. Ir. liT. • ,a,.,„ :....„•,‘ ` 4--v � "" """"" � nr7 fi IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII "'' 3. j • Rr_iS—... ,r '. *' r mmmin ii in norT I i MMMI '„ .�. I.. ,..„ . .....,,,,_,, . I- _1'',:, ": ."',!, ' • P 440, . El ..... ,,, 0,, . ,,,,,,,,,I 12-11 • I... 1 _awlBuilding 2 Conceptual Elevation-South Courtyard Wall A Building onceptual Elevation-East Courtyard Wall N 1 Exterior Bfor ding M sts Conceptual Elevations CQ 1 Exterior Cement Plaster 4 Aluminum Storefront System 7 Metal Railing 10 Fiber Cement Board&Batten 13 Metal Downspout CD 2 Concrete Tile Roofing 5 Trim w/ECP Finish 8 Metal Canopy 11 Planter Wall 14 Metal Blade Sign 43 Vinyl Window System 6 Metal Screed 9 Wood Trellis 12 Metal Scupper 15 Plaster Finished Overhang Al 2 fV 16 Fabric Awning CO JANUARY,,,2022 PREPARED FOR: 1 WOOD PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee ""`"_ 11849 W.Olympic Boulevard Suite 204 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 VA,rrros .4r,V,uRD. .mrcw Los Angeles,CA 90084 •...�+...�....1...,.o. -o..,�. -1- (N d- a) co __ —,. c. ;, .: 4 . : 4 ,-„. -•. - . -- ' •- _ - -- - I -4..• 1,,Iirili iiild-o.. I' 1 " .. .. . .--- L. - . • ••• ., •,,. . , . 1 _._ - - ;-. - ...- ft__ , . allev.rinint/. ,, „ , , , . . , 1 1 , iii •I I 11 i I I 1,171 i -_-,.__. _ i7i, 0., 4'511, lig r d'icillii -!1.1 I . MEP - 0 i 1.i 6 •-. r .• 1111 .V 7 - ; , "1 ii EN.. lo ,..i.,T ..,, .'', ! ••••7-',. 1, • '' 7. , It t- • i, ._ — ';, I Eli . . .i r ., i ... 1111 -. . . •- .--- 2 'I. . FT. -- -_ -.. • ib.,--...-.11 , i. --i.,,.. . r :..-: .._ 2_•....!,N.,14.z,.0,-..1 2,F.1 ..kV' i I. 4 , • : pij _..... ...5,4 _, • - A -• - I 1 , . • i ili -I iii 111: ji ._.L.- _,. .__ __ . . " v ., - _ ... •—_. 01-1 II imilitil 41111A1111 I 1 1i riommil r 1 y I i till , t• - :. . - 0 . i , . 4.•_.* jP4'. Er it : : '4 111 ; ii i. k , IS .TIP i r..ismir .1 !---74w, ice11 _ l_-1 ir :R Sr T A 4 tr 1 1.. - riell _ ._ 41 .- II 4.: + ;la I ` r Page 425 co N N a) 0_ t _,. , . 116:114_ 1. .1p. _,_4......,_, : 6. I - * a 1 64 Id 'I . '• I I iltim .n.2. 1 , it. .. I Li IT . 1111 '-i-4 I IN I 1 ' 41. pri:11.1111..iii , . ilitika„ 1 . v. .,.,4t..."ij --1 ' .2- t4b • - ;Or willPF 1 - , ----...--------`----,_ „_, ._- •i-' i .---- -------- ' 1 -__i__ --__ - --- L - "; ...--.1r! II IIII ''''',,,.,, Imo. id.' ,. ------r•.0" --- - -•NE 7' " . - .4.,,,,,• . , -- --,-,,[., • , .-, Nal Mg r.-- , •.-------------------„,--- . Jr , :17 i [111111 li''' 'II .1 , III MI MI ---'77-wm-ifir i 1.1. r . . M. • • ' I , IMMI=INI . RE II 1 I 11' 11 -" _ . ... • 4 Ir., ....,:-. i Miff 7N _ ....0 .....i. '1.111 I 1...].' ii li [ i : I-T , ,.,,,, . ., .:. . , Em , • .,..7,5-..A. _ _ _ ....r7.1..,,_ _ .........k. :......,,,..!,1....11-:. ..„, ._-----____._ ,=.-F,r,,,34-,),;::.' .„-i-::::1.,,;-,t--‘,..--:. 1..17-tc7-'s. l.'-,....t,:,—7,72.,,.'".7.'-', ':'•:"- ." -- --,--........-- ----.-----3411 .......,r, • ;,..•,- •-d 4 •t .t•''' -t .' ----.4".•' '' •: •• '..: -•af,4 ' "-!,'"! .,,..41,1.7.,.1. ,O.jr,/ ,:'1- -.'i'...,'I •,,- ,E7,--- ''..7--sL.,-,•*-:.:,.;i' ..'-,--t ' ..ei:•••;7. •:,7*- %••—•7...„...,.•. .,.-_•,:e..1. 7., -...=:•',- - - „..„ . ,, .ffli...,._•••. ........„ . ...._ . .. . . . 1...,..,-,....*,,,...„:.,..,,,..„:7,-.,..,..,...-.-J.,..-..,-.,_ . -. _L.... • .. , , •.. -•-•••.*at it7.--...-4-:4,..---. 4,- ,-....-..-..,..... _ .4.,....:.,.. L.......... : • • --,:,:1.14 ,_ •. •• .:, '•-Z•ir. : -7... • , ''.-', , VW.,--",'..r:': ', ,,,• -4'..F 4 l'!.... r..i. -,' 4 .--4.-.• -; .1 ,--.!.... ..- 4.Yar. . __. ••,.,:•.',7..if. .-,.,...-- .'--.k...7.".:.,'".:=•-•--, - - s - . ...---,........,.: .40:1744.:: . .•-, A,7,, ..--._i_,..,i.:.. .. :?„•,..0,......,.p6...• 4.. • _.,,,.._• ,-,-,•••,••••••••,,,,,,000,:loolimi -IIImil,.. . .., -4F. ':':-..-.:.-:..w.'.1Ite.;j',• .:: - ••• . -4,,,, ._ -- ... ...,. . -,,...t.f,::•, •-;.,-%:,-,,-..4 -. ••'ll. —_. . . 7 'L'4. ..a. i;•:.'. •'...:.;--;--...---;: •-''Y''. ' • . ..7-k, r''' .1 - . '01!!',.0.r:Yil: r.`: •Vh. ' "villlil 11ii l' '-,. . r'!•::....,,..4.-.._.,i.:-..-,14„-'1,' . ,. •4.,....1.1 1•4 ad le ' ,1,!!iii,ii„L -,lei 1.11 1--.14 - - - • _______ iiii _. -. ..•.. ',aliti 4.'•••- . , ''4 ,,,V.'7111ktl:• ,7:.11 1,•"Iri[,111,1k.i. --, . ..„. 4,,,, ,.•'I.!;;;Iiiii,! , ITCrilll ' - , - --) '.•....•-40`,-. .'...f.'-' .,:i* •-......• e4;'-.',.-. '-.}i--"•: , DIt ::1111"1,11111 til!1!111- - , 1. ^---_„ - . •.iv..,4 ....-.14.,..._,V - .•,....,__„..r. , - :: •./',. .,•17.'.4:.•Z. , ...."..i:.Fi4itit..•. -.- ..... .7'...- I 7 ••ftr: .L. e:'''•_::•"...•.`•• _:'.'..,,,, .• I '.„. ..-41. 'F., - 1111 ' I' .0 III 0 )77..... • - ';'4•114'''' .,,,,..----:•-•-',..:.-. -! ..• • .- . , ., .• ... • • .: . — _.... 4$tic P- ..1.'t:41 '''' •tf j I ......, . 1 .iIW. . - -- . -- i!'.. . • - -.-.--- -oiii 1-11.1, - 11."---:_,_-- . -:-:--7-!_• .---- ..., ii:i..•.. i'l* -- dolill . .. . -:••:.'0._itiv.'44,:•: .:,•Lrill • • .r-N 111111. 1.411rNti....„ ------ - .' ,.....',.:-IWtrt-.'it' - .:7;' -.4.- ....,3.- -Am cc:...4, 7,.,.... .. . .--... . • 1, • . ! , , Ili i , .., . .. ...:•4.. . 1 .,-:.:-' .:111 ll ili lit,i I 1 III . •:•li .''O'- -- Vi:1 <--‘7;1 -7>.-.:.' '1'' ...7r • • ,42-'' ..,,•; ' • `...-.., Or gib-)111, ....,,,,.. ..•..„. , . . • : . _,,,,, _. _, ..1',lg. ..%''t,-,...'!. -' •. ..,- -..'. : . .'• :1'4+..-7-1.:-" '!..'4*-P:' .1 ......'1.,.4..mrII. ',OF, .,,,if , . ... . ...• -%•....g itx..se. -r__ ›.-. - _ --m.. '''..t.', . . ... .......-,.... ... , ...11 '''. ' 11 ' .,.. ,,.......:. ....,..:,, .. .,..,311111 P: ' ' '• • ' I:_. ;:., , j„., --;,--_. ,_ • ...,, , • _ . ., . .:... 4.,,,,.::....._„1,.....: ...:-..:„...,,,:-.:.,..., :.; ti,0 ::*.,•..A,. .. ....,_4;_;„, . 411 , ----.-,-._--,..; _ .•i, . .• .- 9 - _ . ..•••• T, -• .. . ...,.•. ..!,•:,...,,,:,,,.-.:.'',.,!•. 1 . z.. . '.-1...,.. -,t;'.., .::;:"„... 7.-_ ,_ , • Nair T 1 . . ...:•,•;•:::;: .:.„. ,tez...,:..., ..:..,',;•,.,:.?-::iisar+r,:':•.4-,• . _., ..: .. • ...• .-:. :,.. .::.... .!..,.:•4! :..'....•.:. ..!..::-:.::.:...417•?7-0?.1-;`. • .---- NIL '*7--'''' -711:A11111 ., .„.-. -4i- fteP.--m. - . „ . . -_ 1, ,...,,,..•_.-,.._ I .1. ,. ,.-.);,...,.f.'*#,';'.n'•*::..5L;4,. '.. h.,.H0 Afk.' i , ILI 1 '6 4:11 iill.4 1 ... 1 k 1 IhIlljkVil Ci 1 I.. 1 - ......1....., 1 j i ... M' 1 , • ,..,—• IMO _ . . • .11K4 I. , I s'IL: i, 1 11 u, , 1 „1 1 i -,''''l i'' 1 .1 11' -j- 1 111'11111 ' ..__ - .- -Z.=::%4129741 /„,A• w' 7 Fir .- -_ ! . ---• —i'llgi 11 'A ., 1 :172,..-:-.:-. i-M? - .-2.1•=mi, ;• 11 ..,,, ...-, -. 4 • . 1,,..: ..;- ,s..,, ' ....,,. ._ y,,,7%,°z• ..- 4 ' - —,e4:,,,i ,':.- .- -. .4, - il LA .1,i' 1 e .1-:•& ..F. ._.__, 11. ,,,,illk 4 14 lit MIA'.`•_;... ., _ / . .,. cl - 111111111'111 I I II 1 y 4%. - {, i • ii I I 1_ _M I L M IIIpllop . , ii,hogro, 11111 I ,.. I 0 11 ilL",' , ' 111 11,1 11 1,1iLl,i'llill II 1,111, iililut, ,, ..1 1 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,., „,„, .1 ,,,,, 11 1 ,1,1 11, 111111 I 1 1 dgi, , , IP f . ..,.,,- ,,;€,..!.., '•''•..-- Page 428 . ',-,....„-Zi-,4:'- •,-..:— .... 1 -42 iFt, -,,,i,„-,-.4.'”' ' ‘''''. ' -'7.:: -#1 Or .0 =I' .- r - • - . .,. _ .._ AMENITIES EXHIBIT Alta Cuvee Overall Amenity Exhibit Foothill Blvd —• O Lobby/Leasing: 1,600 SF © Club/Fitness:2,550 SF — — - _ sr © Business Center: 1,500 SF r .- �:._.._.._:-_.�.._.._.._.._.r_ _.._.__..�. .__._..__.�..�._.._ O Courtyard A:9,825 SF 2_ >` f1 § Added public ball court w © Courtyard B:8,1355F 1. � ` =' -- tq =� 5- '*_ - I_ O Retail Pocket Park:4,960 SF "', - ' d V, - Public access inside paseo _1 yq O Paseo:4,425 SF f C2`'7 1-m Ala Ala 1.1 a 1 . • .Al {eSam A'al IA'a • el Children's Play Area&Tot c of 0 Dog Park: 415 SF ; i "I • , I i ..`rL. IV , F r .i,�' „g . '! e g.. 1I - `'- _ - �. 71-•• ,°�` i _ ._ A _ �rP.. -r1' •i'' .�tr,1•...91,-i -r ■ Ledir k �vahr��N Total Amenity Space:33,410 SF r Aa i I. --I•i =f"" r `" '� AA: , •OA ii L Al V At' �• A2 =- Eli . ' 1 A3 Al�A [A1.1 Apr} Ii=•• ! 3 A2 e1 Ta a; 7 „s- w. ,,.. — Notes: Al-. .,, • Children's Play Area&Tot Lot included in ! EC RI „4 ff •1-�.E ! •4 �':I� [ ,ram w� Courtyard B 1 r, `" .... AS : 1 1� • Al :: _ � Courtyard 6-II• i • Retail Pocket Park&Paseo are accessible Al Aa 4 •I • ' As � y— - 5 Ala-an • •.1 to the public es i. .. r As �.. — �_f-• Ai efi Courtyard e, -..., A,ftef FH—)41 � I 1 is0'x1a4' . -. i A3 - � •a2 ,- 'C1 P. A,Aell I eswa 1-.� + illi Al vl I-Tram/vac.� I ! 1 a l • 11 L ! I „�'�'! h _ _a--r y..�.��,. �- I i i i 1 ,�[ i i l i i �[`i i �A i i I � � 1 ti �L'i, I x'-, >=• _ - --- P= N--, i-}�,� , -. .I ! I I I LW 1 H I I F.1_ L a=I' •..• - p�� Nalrh Indkatos area Indudad in common L. i2 r i Soon apan apaca.nmmum 6 r 15'dunanson Building 2 ,r..,,, , - r -. l *.- 41'I Awall *=EVSHII �1 of nr - n m m m * * k t °� J '-11' y v i41) g 7,', I '— Building 1 t200 Surface Parking OarmpelHAl Una Below it(27-random SWII•} Lt 'ii, 1 i 1 I i I i Fzi �, m i f I l i It iikAl &___,__ 2F .Min ii]'LaMscarx• _ H�lei�ring ;r X `1. Bear •Nall h a rV co Exhibit D r 1 C2 1•al — Ala Ala 1-al A3-.It A3-dlI erg-w'� i �°�r II 9.4 Alta Cuvee t, -�, I ; ",�: i �:. ; Indoor AmenityExhibit -_�_ �- _�... L... Q Lobby/Leasing: 1,600 SF f II„ � Loeb Lo66y�L�1 E' ,,AC ��,.. Irf 7s -1i.-'�I _ • r�lI ca...aw.n,.,. � '.:r Fitness: 1,200 SF . , M51,1© Club Room: 1,350 SF ' 1 A, Al �- A2 . 4yy' _ _ Q©Business Center/Conference: 1,500 SF I r"' A2 �r 81 � "'"'1 -. ., ' . f, ' t•r---.:7• ... tr4: 1 „,1=., ' • • • ' , /ii Total Indoor-5,650 SF -'1 1._. --' ,--,, - t M — ' Courtyard I• ' A3 ! 'f .. F.. '•i i A3 '4J, I, AI�Q� _ rr ' ±1255'X 60' % • 1 B7 r _1 , I A3 - I► ,1 1 A3-` • 4r bigIF UU 1 U ' B1 -� i AlM• ' F 'I ' I ,, 1111 .J ,wr.0 50'x 0-4' .� =�i- `1' - _.1. }w• f: " ,� P j� � A3 r `it l ��1 i .wim1 'f•.. Bl 1 C1 p _�: Cl rol - L I: . 'ows. _ 62• ' it d t . p �;. 81-alt 1 ill � ° B1 i...Trash/Elec a. I III J '-•1 ., ' I'b 1 �. 1• 1 1 Q 1+ _ t, . m,. 2 ry , y I tie Hatch indicates area includwd m wmmon ,l0 ' it . 0 .. . w [�i�4�1 ( -- 1*— open space.minimum 8'x 15'dimension t4 ,.,�,� 5' • ► *� 42'H gh Wail *=EV Stah : . , --1';-----il-AlIllp §8 -r m .1 i dial I m Isj....._ M 13- ,. .. ..- Fil .1 C - ..- r,' ♦. • i l f ,r ... -- , IIlri r 1 I ii ii,' -V -#, W '✓" ' CD ` - - - - i ......� �' 1 Alta Cuvee — Play Area & Tot Lot Detail _ "-"'y` , .._ . 1,376 sf turf lawn `" � - �' © 272 sf soft floor play area ��i ��_ • This area will have movable playground equipment, -' in �' ,• 10 �� • .. . �� movable toys and movable sports equipment that will -�- �� kV,. , accommodate younger and older kids while • •� .M , maintaining flexibility with the space to be used for . $ El `�'. ' more adult activities. p 1111 • We are also proposing to have a"kids day"once a month that is managed by the property where we will — — al_ 'ems 14 .. �- i., r , -arm - ii -- -.I ..m'' 1106. ild!!bari.1"1:115, 1 !� t • i 3 FTuaeLox •• . u` I 1• .. 4 ,I -IV i ; --=. 11J1 ` .. .. 1- Vr / 1 i I ii-i Willy _ I. 4t, ,,,,,, . . ., . • ---...... ..... .17 ' ., . 4 ,lr, a • p :' -_, , •t . ,...4.. \I, •t:IL=1. WE ,- 4 .4 ....... .:... I:" --.., — .. :Iiii . . . .... . ,j) .� I _ 1 .,.� Atm :7- -Z7-::'.... 7 _ ' T3PI.�SHO�,� _ . OVERALL SITE PLAN AMENITY EXHIBIT 410 L 1.1. 1. I., FOOTHILL BOULEVARD —- '.- _11 _ wmIslrOmmr LEGEND il 71.1.M fli W4Ti Till Ili 01117:1..7;1 .....IFT 0 BUILDING 1 COURTYARD -rirerpir; lthimg...11M1r311:11' - = '' ' s:, orP'; le ".•-.-1,.-it-.L' . ,., .4-4 ' gliff.r .,... . 'I -- dtvk ., .. . ..,.....,.. _ , . : 0 PASEO BUILDING 2 COURTYARD r .., .._....,,,,_ ,._., i Ur • ii Aill -3 littilyitsivoal.7: ..... .,4; _ _ ir .. ...WC -r'' 'leaps 111,32) !'' r ., • , . NE.- •r• , , ,,,.. . IW t 0 WALKING LOOP • . i K' ' PIE g r '' -1 sr- ., 1 .. ViSref i 1 r ••• i igin 1- .z.A — . t .4'• •,....17-1 -IF, _ • , 7.... b . 1 - IM.I 0 DOG RUN : I =. II III 4 •. -. --• • Fr re. ..„r 1- _. M . I VPIt -.1 ' ' 1 ..;341 !.. ,II.ETE , IW , IL . 0 CHILDREN'S TOT LOT : 1 - 1,_ JAL .1_.ir. ' 1 IR. da--- ' r--u --• i r ri* - • • -n. Mi ., -.. i. MI 17. ...., •,.;.,..:At 1 sib - ,.= IW ,_ . _ dill III u- r ; — •-a"' 1 I I IL oir .-- _,.. ,....• - INN 1 1 ii*1- '. -ll'il ...... mil . P.M i I 111::41 — ! - 4 , . a ,. :,„ R., , ...1 _ _ r _ ,, .. • ,,, ---, .... . ,...,,,,..v. • .• , ....,, ... _ . < I 1 il iw",_, L.: [argil:, A - • r •■••• •C 1 II% ‘., 14, F I ' „........ ir n 1 —r. - _._,_ .... • illf ,, ; t GI lah161 .. :Ell _ 7 ,,, ,,.,..., .---„ _ 1 11.., . , 1 i 00"•"14111 1 , 0111111111111111 111111b. 1111 - f , _ L Li 1 f I _ . _ ._ .1,-, --1' lir SW .1/W •i."7, .fai/Mr- _lr .'1' AV '7 7 4 , r , -, L ..c., _ 1 0,,___ Ea -F., I , ... ' 4 ,-"A . ---.5i4-41,• , _,- 13I 1 Ve*-1ir__A-4^7i1ait- '1k1 ti.tN7i 1i 4" l!fi'Pll i 404 % 1 ---,o• " rif4,.=.2., . il‘ ._ ., ... . r. : _______ --- a, Low WATER USE,L e.,41 It rriE I(II.p-F,.. L Hil DUN 5 in -,r C..0 CD - ALEIRT SI 2•21. ,-.... .r. I.E1,0111,r011 0...) WOOD PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee ;. N.) _t aliVel 1.34 w ciegur-ier.de.d _ . .-... Sudo 204 1'.939 FOOTHILL BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA.CA 91739 Los Angeles.CA90064 OVERALL SITE PLAN LI AMENITIES EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 COURTYARD AMEVIIY EXHIBIT , q r,p--.-Calial 1211- 1L.-it:2. IAPJA=,,IR.LIL711 L lq ---- ! LEGEND .=A ii m•47:. ..Tall-=1,.---rm. 0, . •••d I ,.. , .;.1 • .1 , lit p a . ; Ito ii•ic : . is 01,00,AND5pATERRAcE(Mc SF) m,..=Es• .. ,,. INA i . -4 "ilia p , - ! : -. Tiii111 _ . w., i .A1 ' 11 .- -- - r Km ._— . .-.... . . ------3.--„,...._ . • J - * 0 CHAISE LOUNGE SEATING . 111314 7.- Ct.illal rill 0:, 11111c I 0 0-BUILT-IN COOK CENTER AND DINING SEATING I -,, . _._.., -•'[-,.1-4 ..a . _ . .17 mi r CLUBHOWE TER.ACE 0 PREPIT WITN LOUNGE SEATING C I AG 59 . L '. m..--, i i• ii• 0 - .. . ) y L....7z.... :In lb II -i. ._, C •:r• 0 LOUNGE SEATING AREA ,_ .,d11 . ,ill* .-.AA•-..1 in JO r.- -- 2.2.! 1 1 11 0 :::.. ' 1 ' . MO • in INF 5 ....-17 :..r.:__. ...... _.,..t I M- 111111 !IR! E 1 ir L. 0 BACKED BUILT-IN SEATTNG WITH TABLES AND SIDE CHAIRS • 1 C- ig ' - - . At. i.. iiik..4•Lw:=4 b? . . o•. i OIAL BUILDING 1 COURTYARD AREA 11,025 SP ig 1 71 1 =‘•. j ._ diffl__- ink c. El ME 11 mE. ur • . . .„ JIM -. ,_•:;: Ilimti - 0 hv, •iii .•. -4: .. al mile . c'..• IN , ...1 Di ._____ • h. - 1--- i mi.._ IW.••JP. ii__ f r`, . —[:' .• •I . I.'-.i .. - ..G. II "J. l' ,111: • i bleit . i . .M _. -•-•Lts -,,,i.4 ____ • ‘ •• ,7: .P_ -lm- iliii11,1, - ROVE • :,-:•iillrailliM 2 Z1=_21=1Z_Ng.: • .. •IIIIM71=11611m, II •.•••I.E... -..41=7. 11111 • J" _.21. 1,..: :../ . . ,_ 11011.. a • .,,. .. '-'' 111,*. ' 7: . _ POOL ENCI.O$LORE FENCE,* -:-•-----. :., !10.1.;', -,:•:._ .,. ._.• 'I 1 1: cimai 1 . • ...4-I..• 1,,•-- ! 1. 4 .111:71.* . -.-'---- IP ll. I E. ..17.-...T. 4 . . ...... ••. :4. :-. _.. Q ir ___.,,„ . J-__ r, --_, , p. i_ COOK CRR EN LOUNGE SEAPNG MTN MEM A- ii pH 22 cl ••• ' i ....,..r... :,. ..,.--,._._... ,, PM M --M—iirliiiiNi..1,1 .•- :.,•,.. .._ :c• I r - , ._ &It, • i q _I .._ ll d. i ...! MB 0 kdt4ig 0 . .1.1111.111 I 7,,,:gi W.A11,,,mt..10 ,gibb,,AA t._..1- jL RAC FU,BUR 1•W 5EAVNG OUTDIX/R DINING WOOD PARTTIERs Rancho Cuvee eIN, AUel l'arOTE.OW*A,WiRieR4d —W—f'. et*:raL-1 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 1.41FAKEAU,C.44%.74A6 T:Iraf. 7:E .L'iM"'""" ENLARGEMENT PLAN L2 Exhibit E PASEO AMENITY EXHIBIT 0'17� veeeeeeni 1 .: 1_. • • !+•, - ;� _ . '7 __ . . \ I ' - - 40 f • iiir rr 1 IL 1. ■ hem pa,Y•i ::� L ' LEGEND nrur�_ ��r� — — sMrrar,. s. il, ru s■P. I' �_ G P rr • ■R 1 . v.ini PASEQ PLAZA.ENANCED CONCRETE PAVING.RAISED PLANTER I ■ -T. - alrR •' I �'. WITH BUILT-IN SEAiiNG AND SPECIMEN TREE.TABLE AND CHAIR ' I rr rARIrR mi — I�rr r�rP SEATING WITH TIVOLI LIGHTS AND POTTED PLANTS_11,999m ,0 : Oliar r� I i r' r - . Rimy IiII�IY , --_. III IOUNGESEATING AREA 1600 SFI br Il • l r. a - r,'i I i. k`� RAISED PLANER WRM 24.110 NSWING FLEXIBLE SEAPNG . 85'x 35'DECOMPOSED GRANITE BOCCE BALL COURT WITI I1�■ ,� -•�y 2'►`� CONCRETE HEADER(300 SF) I • it■-' 1 •s. _ liii ENHANCED CDNCRETE PAVING WITH TABLE AND CHAIR SEATING ��•�I ■1 iiuip J it x. • �• +0 •' r I' hpm ,-. 'A�■ • — nl■IaluN�n�e1 k:` t -Jr r 1 _ 'FRUITLESS pIIVE TREE ALLE WITH UPLIGHTS ��, • illa icy x 28.00G RUN(289 s9 _-;�I i N 0 � JT• t r - -•,.`,. �J �' TOTAL 401 PASEO AREA=6,2d5 SF Aiii _ ■:L.�I..I:II� �I • u ,�f 1 'e♦l �IMMI �.rr - FRURLESS OLIVE TREE GROVE 1. • Y ILI!...P.I.AI.. !L''....., . .11,.....,'•-tili ...,,441 1.1_ :,..... . • *4. •, r .. -Till 7 - ..„._.- - � p rr♦R '♦PMI R III ,mil' J. Ir I '- t' BOCCE C.AI.LCQIIRT PASEO LOUNGE SEATING ■III 4 r iiinnlrinl' �i m_. �1 _, �Al_ ' g II ri zimigi; I a J �� '®, �� -• , * t„: . v 0 IO I6 I W L. __`"I r. - NTr ]Cl JF-- r.n. ...i n MALE r.p-0• ..=- u ,"- �i STUCCO SEAT WALL PLANTER cp .11``�. -..■ T .... .'�' hNlVmfi»n vaFvwyu•w WOOD PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee ! A�� 11&19 W.°triple Boulevard S"'la 204 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 Los An9rlrs.CR 90061 ;;tw!.1,=7+"'•-. ENLARGEMENT PLAN L3 BUILDING 2 AMENITY EXHIBIT I I-T f +I EI 3 E 1) I :I • �{ i I. -��+- � •Malietas:r=,ao• LEGEND ilr * 1 , I 4 �K LG1*\ 1d'z86'OPEN PLAY LAWN(}.3765F) �-■� • - 'F I b I'_ 1■f—i —ICI_ -TI1_ 1 i� 0 FIREPLACE LOUNGE(71 A SF) M, -,- 1 r '_J>•'�I .., _.■11 In: -..:'■i A-[ik:,_ — OUTDOOR COOK CENTER,DIMING.AND -•-='mil - 4.! F �- LOUNGE SEATING AREA I p a ��<I1:; '`lip KI , .ma is _ '' • .T_�_YA f 'i 1 I Ql _.J BUILT-IN DAYBED SEATING ! NH-HaW2 �' • +91ii• r .. r •'. 1 I 1. .. !!�h 6. - 0 1 6'x17'CHILDREN'S TOT LOT('72 SF) B I ■ ,:, =ra a [f L II ��JJJJ � II .L_ .. I C u AMENITY SPACE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA{400 SF) s ,�}'• e: - ar i ._ ___..J ail =�� 'I.i. " °•- Eiji •�ii:Ii � .7. TOTAL @LAILDING 2 COURTYARD AREA=7,925SF I�w .I A �E■i W; it �a- + .., Mp I I .-� .:XL.... • oI -,NE `=` IllaMa'TIar __:J` 41s'r'• 'd' ••• i`a11a51 aafi� r -- - — - I k. • . ''V . -• • t. 1.• " 9 . Li - 1 •A' -- AI' .-111 ------ 1 . _.7.. r • ;:� a .. �' AWN VI i142.74 0_ Jr...7. _4.7....._ .. .. , , I CUOUTDOOR FI-• -E COOK CENTER.DINING.AE.': BNLT-INDAYBED 'RSVP• •'.URF?' DM PI.: . . COWOOD PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee live] 01 1184R W.Olympia 9aulavaro SURD 204 1".939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 y�1. LoS Angeies,CA 90084 1 TIM?.wrww n... ENLARGEMENT PLAN LA 0 10 20 40 60' NORTH 20"MAX TALL CMU RETAINING WALL e'HIGH EXISTING NEIGHBORLY WITH BURNISHED FINISH .COLOR To SPLIT FACE CMU WALL MATCH RESIDENCE6 HIGH DECORATIVE CMU BLOCK CROWNED CAP WALL HEIGHTCMU WALL WITH BURNISHED IVPRIES BURNISHED FINISH COLOR TO MATCHNISH PRIVATE PATIO 36.TALL C.WALL ITH BURNISHED FINISH AND CONCRETE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BURNISHED FINISH COLOR TO MATCH RH 18 TALL CMU SEAT WALL WITH PRIVATE PATIO 36.TALL C.WALL PER CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS.WALL 6"-0'0'PER CIVIL COLOR TO MATCH RESIDENCE CAP COLOR TO MATCH RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RESIDENCE r-_,`—_�� i _- • - — _ I . ..o_•ate' =�ww� l l u u l l .} ili - -—--—-��e � oC�.=_ ._ . e ■■■�■��■�■��■Ii.�=siJ --■ ■I � 1► ■�■■■1 �- .d��_ - ai - — ` "Wall�7 az"HIGH METAL GUARDRAIL 11 ' ►ririo - r ` .. -=—.�- - h,_',�� n '., ■E.IN __ '■n _,, _-..._.:_� � \F.PaNTEUBLACK' Lc, •� ■ ■ ■li■IlElm ■ ■ ■. ■c� - ■i_ rim ... I -- I�,e:. IS - I _ .111111 ■ ■ ■III II / ��----, ��--- �� -iI 1� J�. • ,L' -1 . 2a liliiio 1 41311 NIrNc II I ■II I■ SI R I� I, 1IIII 1�■ I� 1� • 1 AEI • o 7• • 1 1 1 w �1 _= milL r ;AI .4 IiLMIIN u .�Y .r.�. _ - l"L- 34 ' 1_, I O ATCH I WALL WITH NIS WISH C JIB-L. _I dnl.��h' IL`�r raLLM f if cmRE -�.. � A I • w• M. I Ili�1 l•- t i ,I �, I I , �I •1 I _ i � 1 Ir W R FIN E 11.}1�IF�IV,:...1_ Iu7iC.Y!H 1.Cal r Maug/ mire a �I:1� RIM - \ 7j1 9 • III :� T] 1 "R'f r C MU O SEAT WALL .r.I:, J , - E} I R I . n \i inIIIIY■d1111 O C ETE $. , !t ,■ r rL �� rill'r.11 6 LCM ?�! , L I � B ODE � I / . � /v-- �r _ 0� •�I� I..� � y1IIIj1ns\ _�LL�. �r a , � 6� w • �I 1 i ,�l� Ii DM .1P2 _�I :■■� .. no,. is �,.1 7 . ■■- :2' I, V,irte�y _I II G fL- ,•- zB 1 _ .Imo0 0 0 �I nzw 4 ' E� ,'..: ► I� wl �i iFs�1 E_'= ,--1�7 lii �Id'i ��1�-_`a , riu• _ TII �1t Imo• - ..I El n:,--�w •>�i I , -INE INN MIZE NE1'L Ti n • lip ■l,I, 'l�� W E J 1■�-_ . I. i`• :nob�� Iowfam._ u �min. 7* LAIN [1- 11'1, ■ I �,,. ,m60.1 c , r, ..A.s�la . i F € : 1 1 D p :::F IIIIIIIIIIIII r i , A N• G ■ I r, 1. _ z ' • �rietliPI r7. ..�Ili ■11, �I ��in ` �I 1 ..- • �� ■ .:.I ' a., w •,:, Ms IS� i� UjIMM • nwS�.7�C■IR ni:l I'P • L_. ALA I -i: `.iJ I __i�E'67I�--1■L C■■■■■n'�i•,�■■ln ��` 'L_. _ �� o s ,_ 1 • �I� EI■r-i■■■1„ �6 II o Ei13 r 1, ■■ limp .■L' 1IPI #A A, 1 U ISA O lir ® ■n r : 30'TALL CMU WALL WITH BURNISHED FINISH COLOR WALL WITH BURNISHED -:J�I■ � I FINISH COLOR TO MATCH RESIDENCE FINISH COLOR TO MATCH RES OENCE J ,44 �•♦� ir PL PICKET DOG RUN - N� FENCE AND GATE WITH TOP AND �: BOTTOM RAIL COLOR.BLACK t 'e '. o o o ��;- r r ��' l PROPERLY LINE 1_x .f .—. / o /I- �—.—. �i__,. —�. .H3 HIGH EXISTING NEIGHBORLY SPLIT FACEPLANTER WALL HEIGHT SCHEDULE'. CMU WALL. HIGH DECORATIVE CMU BLOCK WALL 02 HIGH METAL GUARDRAIL 6 HIGH DECORATIVE CMU BLOCK WALL VA CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS. PAINTED BLACK PER CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS 16 HIGH WALL Q) CMU WALL WITH BURNISHED FINISH CROWNED CAP �� 3 0.HIGH wALL exhibit E WALL HEIGHT VARIES6'-0'-0"PER CIVIL COLOR TO 36 HIGH WALL MATCHRESIDENCE CO — JANUARY 11,.2 �6,pI µ WOODR ;t` ' PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee ` AVri 11849 W.Olympic Boulevard ,„,,' LGBAng4les,CA 90064 Suite 204 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 �,r •,..a.••A•II,•I•I••I.a .,.. WALL AND FENCE PLAN L4 4 0 tli. WO OD PARTNERS Alta Cuvee — Parking Management Plan This document outlines Wood Partners' Parking Management Plan for Alta Cuvee, located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga, CA. The policies and requirements set forth in this Parking Management Plan are aimed to provide an organized and systematic parking plan for residents and guests of Alta Cuvee while mitigating parking congestion in the site's surrounding neighborhoods. Wood Partners is committed to being good neighbors with the community and managing parking on-site to ensure that the policies below are continually reviewed/updated as needed to maximize the efficiency of our parking facilities. Resident Parking All resident parking will be located within the gated portion of the site, either on the surface level or within the 1 subterranean level parking garage, as outlined in red in the two site plans below. An access management system will be installed,where only residents with be granted access to the resident parking areas. All parking spaces will be specifically numbered and assigned to registered vehicles as part of a tenant's lease agreement. Tandem spaces will be assigned to the same multi-bedroom units consistent with tandem parking best management practices. Site Plan: Surface Level—Resident Parkin.III- Foothil Blvd — -- — — — —i .,.0 rer L. . -.-. -. - - *: - . � :r S • ; 1.--K ® iv',in ��=IF'"', poi . . _ ,.,,,g" -mr : ..., -. li?. imi .,... .;, , A, 1 ni R. .,1,.., . rip, ' o ia_-w- _ i■i - j■r . , R■irs Courtyard .r r'J ..°"/ 1�Jag ,r" tiI jr R U ru piji■i u t 4_ I_L .!„- +I[A41..if/ ■yip . "-■,..! _ , 1.: x , z Cff JI i 9E!■!i .m of ` , � 1" mIi 1 !■M e, •i. J . uiyM. 1 1 t` mo w.. , .-,,,,---- ; Eiiaildkg7 R !III! 11111!I1 I ; 1 Resident Parking I i 0 Mil miair rVulcank .mow• c.n++wrsanwe i �lI ouNimI!l1.I1 PIS' lAml�� low Il]�!� imr a' IuIpur -'iIp!I r !r t i i■► v "? *r-.ireir- Aril*" ;0 Si � a ...I . Exhibit F Page 437 Site Plan: Subterranean Parking Structure—Resident Parking FOOTHILL&VLI .. tu I - Resident Parking s-. 'rarrar H - 4 I I I i 4111110 1 r I 1 .- Commercial/Guest Parking All commercial and guest parking will be required to park on site in designated spots reserved for non- resident parking, as outlined in purple on the below site plan. These non-reserved parking spaces will be utilized on a first come first serve basis. Commercial users and guests are not allowed to park in resident reserved park spaces and shall not park in nearby neighborhoods. Even if a reserved tenant parking space is unassigned, commercial users and guests are neither allowed to utilize the unassigned resident parking spaces nor will have access to the gated resident parking area. Site Plan: Commercial/Guest Parking _ _ Foothill Blvd y — -- — ,,, c, , .1_,..,:__L,,....aitc--0110 _1 ,.1_, ,' ' E__,1F-,...'----. 1 .' :::„‘:, —1; "..z,44, / S"11■1 '•" Inzs nig aI .0 INu M■��I LIME" y■■ Courtyard :M� I pr- J N■his iiN !■Ilew ; , _ bla'. '*,iru )I L dr, 4 c.A..d 4 !wi■R r .i I I� Commercial/Guest Parking I - e wel■x r m —� ■ r M }I t I .« I min 5 s 01 i■:.. friar :. ' ,ry�K. :74 r„va�..r.. +�' S.vlld'rIY7 a+lr.Fh13 ..Ra,..i �� - 1111 / ,41 �.�� ,.•,10,1 ( 1 I 40 li I mi MI IIMP111.141.11ELMMINPRIF 'i.A.!AA.IF 2.P![IIIPUr 111111r '9 12, I Ait rr 3irl- V A. "T V .,.ii .li ! AP it 1 ..s 4 - j '''' . .. s Tr. :0 2 Page 438 Register Vehicles with Management All resident vehicles will be required to be registered with building management as part of their lease agreement. Only those registered vehicles will be allowed to park in the reserved spaces for residents. Management staff will monitor the amount of resident parking spaces that are available. Units will not be leased to tenants if a potential tenant has more vehicles than spaces available. Assigned Vehicle Parking All resident vehicles will be assigned a specific parking spot that is numbered and reserved for the specific vehicles use only.Parking spaces are assigned to one(1) specific resident vehicle only and are not able to be shared with other resident or guest vehicles. If a tenant's vehicle information should change, it is the responsibility of the tenant to notify management in writing within 3 days of the change. Security/Monitoring Management staff and security personnel will be on site 24 hours per day to monitor and enforce compliance with the requirements of the Parking Management Plan and the requirements set for in the tenants' lease agreements. Cameras will be also be utilized to monitor the parking areas. Any violation of the parking requirements set forth in the tenants' lease agreements will be subject to towing,revoked parking privileges, and/or eviction. Management staff will conduct quarterly occupancy surveys to ensure that parking is being managed appropriately and verify that parking occupancy is consistent with parking permitting. Management staff will also review potential parking spill-over into adjacent areas through review of security footage and/or site observations. Maximum Number of Vehicles & Monitoring A maximum total number of vehicles will be allowed per apartment,with the below requirements: • Maximum of 2 parking spaces for a 1-bedroom apartments • Maximum of 2 parking spaces for a 2-bedroom apartment • Maximum of 3 parking spaces for a 3-bedroom apartment The number of remaining parking spaces available at the property will be monitored during lease up and stabilization. If there is not a sufficient number of available spaces as requested by a potential resident for his/her vehicles,a lease will not be executed for that prospective tenant. Additional Parking Language An Addendum to the resident's leases will include the below requirements related to parking: • You agree to register all vehicles with management and all such vehicles shall be parked onsite pursuant to the terms of this Addendum and any parking rules and regulations promulgated by management from time to time. • You shall not park any unregistered vehicles on site. • Assigned parking shall be on a first come first serve basis. You are not entitled to a parking space unless one is assigned to you. 3 Page 439 • If a parking space is available and assigned to you,you shall only park in the parking space assigned to you. • Your guests shall park onsite, on a first come first serve basis,in the spaces specifically designated for guests. • You understand that your vehicle will be towed at your expense if you park in a space that is not assigned to you. • You understand that your parking space(s)are for the ASSIGNED Vehicle only and that it is not be shared with anyone. • Resident understands that parking privileges may be revoked if this addendum or any of the parking rules and regulations are violated. • If your vehicle information changes, it is your responsibility to notify management in writing within 3 days of the change. Failure to do so could result in your vehicle being towed from the property. Any violation of these lease agreement requirements will be subject to towing,revoked parking privileges, and/or eviction. 4 Page 440 Alta Cuvee Apartments Building 1 Building 2 Foathdl Blvd Parking Management Plan \..1____\ ,.. -- - -" Th i G [.EraY_ rn Drawings s . _ --- — _ ide Ground Level 1 t II 15I .t /ma z.. 41 _' N! ®,w Ay A,. sua R1 .LN r Are. __ A1N Mi 1 — �' I vim. +-• f1 . .i— ,' wr 1 eu.w• ELIO • Guest/Visitor-87 spaces L •• x� J + -�` .. :�rl err+ i I r+: e -Y • Assigned Residential-Building 1-50 spaces H Y •„y`•' ,,' ra x2 ' A- 1 �. p ■ •+L ,+ A3_ �,, �,_1.5 r» il • Assigned Residential-Building 2-50 spaces / y■ r+ 14ill■-.� . - _ !. A' tea , AA-.1 +♦1,11■1� .-- 11• ■� Courtyard r r 11 laditai - • Commercial-13 spaces �1+" , , '_ r A3 r A+� .wii�ls `r;:, ,,�' 'n� M m� IA l' 1 ■ice • #■ +"�■ii ,� ' "` ■ • Courtyard f31.' •-• Alit �-1 t'.• �7 !.■R � fC' �n 0 w -' t90'x 4R4' ■M r •_ _ a Unit Mix a h T _ . ... • = -.. :. 1 P' G, 371 Building 1 i it - rk, wed 9 .. + � r' A # ill • Live/Work-0 apartments ,.-•y,e • •.Ml+- 2$ ---_--- i i� um*mo ,mamimcsigami>,r a Building2 • 1 Bedroom—83 apartments . . m � ^� PC • 2 Bedroom—33 apartments - ,jai i ('. 12 • 3 Bedroom—6 apartments4 I , § gg DI § Budd ng 1 k' 3209 s °"'g ..a..-e e I+L li rn Building2 p11.1=1.11111111011111N161 I. I -.L • Live/Work—1 apartments • 1 Bedroom—101 apartments > - "cz • 2 Bedroom—22 apartments • 3 Bedroom-14 apartments Site Plan-Ground Level — .- I Ai DJ CD ..14'ilfErOS PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee ?':.3 came SuiteN+ 12939 FOOTHILL BLVL RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91739 ,a.`+ +wnZ.4,9 rn• _, Um Angela,SAL 95064 ...... .... Alta Cuvee Apartments Parking Management Plan F04THILLSLva Drawings ___--------------------- ------------------------------------------7 Ji 4 Basement Level a , . 20 10 J 1 • Guest/Visitor—0 spaces . ,�,+ • Assigned Residential-Building 1-153 spaces 1' 6 j 1'Nor r t m% • Assigned Residential-Building 2—175 spaces / j �� $� 1 ff • Commercial—0 spaces w / I I "� • I I • • 1-1( I — xua Garage Parking . . .I. 1 . , .. ., ..4r ; 006Taoar 3id+sj -VT Unit Mix H 7,1 =ii1LTT ' yr 1 WI 1111 Building 1 + I IL N I P • 1 Bedroom-83part apartments l ' `'lI■L I I I 1 I ILL I -f-1-1-17 1 • 2 Bedroom-33 apartments • 3 Bedroom-6 apartments , L fi Building 2 • Live/Work-1 apartments L- • 1 Bedroom-101 apartments Irl • 2 Bedroom-22 apartments • 3 Bedroom—14 apartments Site Plan-Garage Level m A2 co o 4, WOOD PARTNERS Rancho Cuvee tie..-.0I„45i0 BdM.eN N) Los 12939 FOOTHILL BLVD.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA B1739 DRC MINUTES 06/01/2021 r- rrr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rr rr r r r Design Review Committee Meeting AGENDA June 1, 2021 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting of the Design Review Committee was held on June 1, 2021. The meeting was called to order by Mike Smith, Staff Coordinator, at 7:00pm. Design Review Committee members present: Francisco Oaxaca, Diane Williams. Staff Present: Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner. B. Public Communications Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and, after noting there were no public comments,closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2021. Motion carried 2-0 vote to adopt the minutes as presented. D. Project Review Items D1. LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST CORNER FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE (12939 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD) — WOOD PARTNERS — A request for a Design Review to construct a mixed-use development comprising of 255 residential units and 5 live/work units and a Minor Exception to reduce the number of required parking stalls by 11% within the Community Commercial (CC) District.. APNs: 0229-311-14 and -15. Design Review and Minor Exception. (DRC2020-00440, DRC2020-00441) Staff presented the project with a recommendation that the Design Review Committee move the project forward to the Planning Commission provided that the applicant incorporate at least 2,500 square-feet of commercial space along the Foothill frontage, in order to better justify the "mixed use" component of the project. Williams said that the project should incorporate a tot lot as part of the project's amenities, since 2 and 3-bedroom units may have children living in them. She also suggested that a dog run be included. Committee member Williams also expressed concerns about the parking reduction sought for by the project, stating that reduced parking may lead to parking overflow to the surrounding neighborhood. Williams also stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation that commercial space be added to the project and noted that the project as currently proposed looks more like an apartment project, rather than a true mixed-use development. Committee member Oaxaca said that the architectural design of the project overall was handled well but suggested that the building incorporate more vertical articulation to break up massing. He also agreed with committee member Williams regarding adding a tot lot and a dog park to the project, in order to increase the number of active amenities. Oaxaca also agreed Exhibit G Page443 with committee member Williams about incorporating more true commercial space for the project. Oaxaca said that at this time, he is not supportive of the parking reduction, and will await further analysis/findings during the Planning Commission meeting. Finally, Oaxaca mentioned that he would also like to see more outreach about the project, possibly in the form of an additional neighborhood meeting. The Committee voted to require the project to return to the Design Review Committee for review after the applicant has addressed the concerns expressed during the meeting. The Committee took the following action_ X Recommend the project return to the Design Review Committee. 2-0 Vote. D2. LOCATED AT 6929 HELLMAN AVENUE — W&W LAND CONSULTANTS, INC. - A ' request to subdivide a vacant 2-acre parcel into 6 lots for the development of 6 single- family residences, a Minor Exception for increased wall height, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove onsite trees for a site within the Low (L) Residential District.. APN: 0202-061- 32. Tentative Tract Map, Design Review, Minor Exception, and Tree Removal Permit. (SUBTT20353, DRC2020-00195, DRC2021-00038, DRC2021-00119) Staff presented the project and noted that the applicant has made a number slight revisions to the project plans in response to the neighborhood meeting. The applicant increased setbacks along the northerly portion of the project and added landscape trees in order to soften the transition between the new houses and the existing neighborhood. The applicant has also plotted single-story homes along the southerly portion of the project to maintain privacy for the existing homes south of the project site. Committee member Williams and Oaxaca said they liked each lot has a unique home and appreciated the applicant's willingness to respond to neighborhood concerns. They also appreciated the inclusion of single-story homes on the project. Committee memb'er Oaxaca stated that he would like to see an increased patio cover depth of at least 12 feet in order to increase usability. The Design Review Committee recommended that the project move forward to the full Planning Commission, provided that patio depths for all homes be increased to at least 12 feet. The Committee took the following action: X Recommend approval to PC/PD. 2-0 Vote E. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, iz th Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: July 20, 2021 DRC Meeting. Design Review Committee Regular Meeting Minutes—June 1, 2021 Page 2 of 2 FINAL Page 444 DRC MINUTES 07/20/2021 ti r� r r r-rrr CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r rt Design Review Committee Meeting Rains Conference Room AGENDA July 20, 2021 MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting of the Design Review Committee was held on June 20, 2021. The meeting was called to order by Mike Smith, Staff Coordinator, at 7:00pm. Design Review Committee members present: Diane Williams, Bryan Dopp -Alternate Francisco Oaxaca -Absent Staff Present: Sean McPherson, Senior Planner, Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner. B. Public Communications Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and, after noting there were no public comments, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar Cl. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2021. (No meetings on June 15th and July 6th) Motion carried 2-0 vote to adopt the minutes as presented. D. Project Review Items LOCATED AT 10943 STALLION WAY—STEVE HACKETT- Site plan and architectural review of a 6,519 square-foot two-story single-family residence with an attached 1,413 square-foot 4- car garage, a 289 square-foot gazebo, a 1,824 square-foot tennis court and a swimming pool, on a 34,314 square-foot lot within the Very Low (VL) Residential District within the Hillside Overlay District and Equestrian Overlay District - APN: 1074-541-03. Hillside Design Review (DRC2020-00248). DRC Committee Member Williams and Alternate Committee Member Dopp reviewed the subject item. Dopp complimented the design of the structure and inquired about structures for equestrian use, as this project is located within both the Hillside and Equestrian Overlays. Staff Senior Planner McPherson responded that the subject project did not, at this time, propose any structures relative to the keeping of horses but pointed out that any future construction of equestrian facilities would have to meet applicable standards. Committee Member Williams complimented the design, appreciated that the project had received preliminary HOA approval. The Committee took the following action: X Recommend approval to PC/PD. 2-0 Vote Exhibit H Page 445 LOCATED AT 12939 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD —WOOD PARTNERS —A request to construct a mixed-use development comprising of 257 residential units, 2 commercial units, and 1 live/work unit and a Minor Exception to reduce the number of required parking stalls by 12% within the Community Commercial (CC) District. APNs: 0229-311-14 and -15. Design Review and Minor Exception (DRC2020-00440, DRC2020-00441). Staff presented the project as revised, which addressed the Design Review Committee's concerns from the DRC meeting on 06/01/2021. Notably, the applicant added a tot lot and dog run as part of the project amenities, as requested by Design Review Committee. The project also had a revised color scheme and added architectural articulation to break up the building massing. Commercial square footage was also increased as a result of converting previously proposed live-work units to true commercial spaces. The applicant's project team presented the proposed programming for the project, which includes numerous community events featuring local talent such as teachers, singer-songwriters, chefs, etc. Committee member Williams was pleased with the applicant's responsiveness to the Design Review Committee's comments from the previous meeting. Committee Member Dopp appreciated the architectural changes and the modified color scheme for the buildings. The Committee took the following action: X Recommend approval to PC/PD. 2-0 Vote E. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: Design Review Committee Regular Meeting Minutes —July 20, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Draft Page 446 RESOLUTION NO. 22-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF 259 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 2 COMMERCIAL UNITS TOTALING 2,253 SQUARE-FEET, AND 1 LIVE/WORK UNIT WITH 816 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE WITHIN THE MIXED-USE URBAN CORRIDOR (MU-UCR) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0229-311-14 AND -15 A. Recitals. 1. Wood Partners filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2020- 00440, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of April 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. A. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on April 13, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue; and b. The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of approximately 5.2 acres. The overall dimensions of the site are approximately 690 feet (east to west) by approximately 330 feet (north to south); and c. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties (relative to the above-noted site) are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Cit Corridor Hi h Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) y g District ' North Vacant Cit Corridor Hi h Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) y g District Exhibit I Page447 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-07 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 —WOOD PARTNERS April 13, 2022 Page 2 South Single-Family Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Residences East Single-Family Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Residences West Shopping General Commercial Regional Related Commercial (RRC) Center District 1 1 —Foothill Boulevard Overlay District,Subarea 4 d. The proposed project consists of the construction of a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non-residential space; and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, density, front/rear setbacks, and landscaping as prescribed in the Mixed-Use (MU) District at the time it was deemed complete (now Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District); and f. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on June 1, 2021, and returned to the DRC on July 20, 2021. The Design Review Committee's input are discussed in the staff report; and g. A neighborhood meeting was conducted for the project via teleconference on March 30, 2021. With the lifting of pandemic restrictions on gathering, a second neighborhood meeting was conducted on the project site on August 9, 2021. This neighborhood meeting occurred in-person, to give the surrounding community another opportunity to voice their opinion on the development prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The community's input and the applicant's response to both neighborhood meetings are discussed in the staff report; and h. On January 20, 2021, per AB 52, the City sent Tribal Consultation Requests to the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indian following a completeness determination for the project. Correspondence in response to AB52 noticing are discussed in the staff report; and i. The Planning Department prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration which incorporates all comments resulting from tribal notifications pursuant to AB 52. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Corridor High, which envisions high development intensities along Foothill Boulevard, particularly adjacent to city centers. The project proposes a total of 259 apartment units, 1 live-work unit, and 2,253 square feet of commercial space, which is consistent with the General Plan's vision; and b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Page 448 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-07 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 —WOOD PARTNERS April 13, 2022 Page 3 Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District, which is an area for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity, and where a vibrant pedestrian environment and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods are achieved. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard while transitioning building scale appropriately to the surrounding area; and c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deemed complete, and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan's vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community; and 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i)that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Page 449 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-07 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 —WOOD PARTNERS April 13, 2022 Page 4 Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2022. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Secretary I, Matthew R. Burris,AICP, LEED AP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of April 2022, by the following vote-to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 450 Conditions of Approval RANCHO Department CommunityDevelopment CucA�ror�cA Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Prior to submitting any on-site signage for building plan check, the developer shall submit a Sign Program application for review and approval by the Planning Department. 2. Building plans shall demonstrate the installation of a 6-foot high decorative block wall along the southern and eastern property lines of the site, for Planning Department review and approval. 3. Landscape plans submitted for Building plan check shall incorporate turf in the area between the pocket park and the covered walkway between the two buildings in order to maximize usability of thel area as a gathering space. 4. To the greatest extent feasible, the applicant/developer shall lease the two ground floor commercial spaces on the project to uses/businesses that encourage public interaction and attendance. Uses that encourage public interaction and attendance include, but are not limited to: cafes, restaurants, bakeries, sandwich shops, etc. Uses that are limited in their ability to attract the public and activate the public space in front of the building are discouraged. These uses include, but are not limited to: barbershops, salons, dental offices, accountants, etc. 5. The project shall remain in compliance with the parking management plan at all times. In the event of any observed parking violations to the parking management plan, the City reserves the right to require the preparation of off-site, on-street parking restrictions such as, but not limited to, no parking signage, time-limit parking signage, red curb, any necessary street repairs/improvements, or the establishment of the parking district at the cost of the property owner/developer. Standard Conditions of Approval 6. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. Exhibit J www.cityofRC.us Page 451 Printed:4/4/2022 g Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 7. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 8. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 9. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,530.25. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing. 10. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 11. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in-lieu option as outlined in 17.124.020.D. If the project developer chooses to pay the in-lieu fee, the in-lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance. If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124. If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council. No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. www.CityofRC.us Page 452 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 2 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 12. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 13. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 14. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 15. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 16. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 18. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 19. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses. 20. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 21. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. 22. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 23. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein and the Development Code regulations. www.CityofRc.us Page 453 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 3 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 24. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on-site to match the building. 25. For multiple-family development, provide exterior lockable storage space as required by the California Green Building Code. 26. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 27. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 28. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 29. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 30. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 31. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 32. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 33. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter. www.CityofRc.us Page 454 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 4 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 34. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. In the event such a legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CityofRc.us Page 455 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 5 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. RCMU requirements: 1) Electric: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. The Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and RCMU requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. RCMU's existing underground electric system will be located off of Etiwanda Ave South of the proposed development. 2) Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City's Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The City will require the developer to install a 1-4" UG Fiber Optic dark conduit on the frontage of the development (East side of Etiwanda Ave and the South side of Foothill Blvd) along the project boundary along with a 3'x4'x3' pullbox on each end of the route and into the project boundary. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. On site, the City will require 1-2" UG HDPE or equal fiber optic conduit to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the development's individual telecommunication room and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 3) Streetlights: New streetlights will need to be installed along the frontage of the project boundary on Etiwanda Ave to the City's streetlight Standard Drawing 410 and City Streetlight Standard 700 for the Streetlights on Foothill Blvd. RCMU will be the electricity provider to the streetlights. 2. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights. www.CityofRC.us Page 456 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 6 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 3. "Per Resolution No. 87-96: All developments, except those contained in section 7 and others specifically waived by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development as follows: 1. Lines on the project side of the street. a. Said lines shall be undergrounded at the developers expense. b. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as short length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and not undergrounded adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users, disruption to existing improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an in-lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6. c. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of undergrounding from future developments as they occur on opposite sides of the street. 2. Lines on the opposite of the street from the project: The Developer shall pay a fee to the City for one-half the amount per Section 6. 3. Lines on both sides of the street: The Developer shall comply with Section 1 above and be eligible for reimbursement or pay additional fees so that he bears a total expense equivalent to one-half the total cost of undergrounding the lines on both sides of the street." 4. "Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance: (Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts) Drainage Impact Fee Transportation Impact Fee Library Impact Fee Animal Center Impact Fee Police Impact Fee Park In-Lieu / Park Impact Fee Park Improvement Impact Fee Community & Recreation Center Impact Fee" 5. Select & Edit Standard Conditions of Approval 6. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. 7. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. www.CityofRc.us Page 457 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 7 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): total feet on Foothill Boulevard total feet on Etiwanda Avenue 9. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. 10. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 11. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 12. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of Building Permits. 13. ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self-hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs/ Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 14. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way: MWD; SCE; Telephone Company. 15. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 16. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 17. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: "All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans." If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. www.CityofRc.us Page 458 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 8 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 18. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name: Foothill Boulevard Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Comm Trail Median Island Bike Trail Other Street Name: Etiwanda Avenue Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Comm Trail Median Island Bike Trail Other Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 19. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. www.CityofRc.us Page 459 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 9 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 20. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring . Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. www.CityofRC.us Page 460 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 10 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 21. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet (typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name: Etiwanda Avenue Botanical Name: Tristainia conferta Common Name: Tristania, Brisbane Box Min. Grow Space: 40 Spacing: 40 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Street Name: Foothill Boulevard Botanical Name: Lagerstroemia indica Common Name: Crepe Myrtles Min. Grow Space: 40 Spacing: 40 Size: 15 gallon minimum Qty.: to be determined during design Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1)All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3)All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 22. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 23. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of Building Permits: 24. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. www.CityofRc.us Page 461 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 11 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR - Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 25. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 26. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 27. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC/CRC NFPA 13, 13D, 13R and the Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and buildings must be in accordance to the State of California and ADA regulations. Elevators shall be sized to accommodate a stretcher/gurney. Infrastructure for accessible EV charging stations is required. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station/parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 4.106.4. 2. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 3. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. www.CityofRC.us Page 462 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 12 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer, or his designee, prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 10. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 7 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 13. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee. 14. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 15. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. www.CityofRC.us Page 463 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 13 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 16. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Engineering Services Department Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 17. All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way (xx Avenue) must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Department. This shall be shown on both the grading and drainage plan and Engineering Services Department required plans. 18. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC 1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 19. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the, City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 20. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 21. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. www.CityofRc.us Page 464 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 14 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 22. DESIGN ISSUE: The conceptual grading and drainage plan shows an area within the parking lot and fire lane where storm water will be ponding. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the civil engineer of record shall submit a set of grading plans to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department Fire Construction Services to review the plans and provide a maximum ponding depth of the storm water retention. This occurs at the various low points (inlets) throughout the project. 23. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 24. Metropolitan Water District (MWD) shall approve all plans that impact their easement, including utilities, storm drain, slopes, and street trees and landscaping prior to issuance of a grading permit. A note shall be included on all pertinent plans requiring Metropolitan Water District Operations Maintenance Branch to be notified two working days prior to starting any work in the vicinity of their easement. 25. A permit shall be obtained from Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for any work within their right-of-way, including grading prior to issuance of a grading permit. 26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written comments from MWD regarding site design restrictions within their easement and provide a copy of said comments to the Building and Safety Official for review. 27. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 28. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 29. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall show on the site plan and the permitted grading plan set for non-residential projects the designated parking for clean air vehicles per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.2. 30. The subgrade for the permeable paver storm water treatment devices shall have a level subgrade. Prior to issuance of the grading permit and approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) the engineer of record shall provide a pad elevation for the permeable paver subgrade on the grading plan and shall provide a detail on the WQMP site and drainage plan showing the permeable paver subgrade as level. 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 32. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer, or his designee, and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. 33. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. www.CityofRC.us Page 465 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 15 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 34. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Engineering Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. NOTE: In-lieu of the form, a copy of the email from the EPA may be scanned and pasted onto the above referenced plan sets. 35. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells/underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP"s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 36. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 37. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 38. The Site and Drainage Plan in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall show the locations of all roof downspout drains. if required for storm water quality purposes, the downspouts shall include filters. 39. The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP's). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement(s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP document. www.CityofRC.us Page 466 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 16 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 40. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the "Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP" section of the final project-specific water quality management plan. 41. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of "Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet" located in Appendix D "Section VII — Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, ..." of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer's recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors". 42. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans". 43. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 44. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan document. www.CityofRC.us Page 467 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 17 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 45. GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as '100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes'). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. 46. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for non-residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station/parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.3. www.CityofRC.us Printed:4/4/2022 Page 468 Page 18 of 19 Project#: DRC2020-00440 Project Name: EDR -Alta Cuvee Location: 12915 FOOTHILL BLVD - 022931114-0000 Project Type: Design Review ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval www.CityofRc.us Page 469 Printed:4/4/2022 g Page 19 of 19 Exhibit M — CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum Due to file size,this attachment can be accessed through the following link: https://www.dropbox.com/home/CEQA%20Documents%20Available%20for%20Review/W DCC%20M illiken%20West%20Residential%2OLLC%20-%20Section%2015183%20Compliance%20Memo Exhibit K Page 470 RESOLUTION NO. 22-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF 259 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 2 COMMERCIAL UNITS TOTALING 2,253 SQUARE-FEET, AND 1 LIVE/WORK UNIT WITH 816 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE WITHIN THE MIXED-USE URBAN CORRIDOR (MU-UCR) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0229-311-14 AND -15 A. Recitals. 1. Wood Partners filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2020- 00440, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of April 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. A. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found', determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on April 13, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue; and b. The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of approximately 5.2 acres. The overall dimensions of the site are approximately 690 feet (east to west) by approximately 330 feet (north to south); and c. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties (relative to the above-noted site) are as follows: Land Use I General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Corridor High Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District North Vacant City Corridor High Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District Atta c hei t 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-09. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440—WOOD PARTNERS April 13, 2022 Page 2 • South Single-Family Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Residences East Single-Family Low Residential Low (L) Residential District Residences West Shopping General Commercial Regional Related Commercial (RRC) • Center District ' 1 —Foothill Boulevard Overlay District,Subarea 4 , d. The proposed project consists of the construction of a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with'816 square feet of non-residential space;and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, density, front/rear setbacks, and landscaping as prescribed in the Mixed-Use (MU) District at the time it was deemed complete (now Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District); and f. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on June 1, 2021, and returned to the DRC on July 20, 2021. The Design Review Committee's input are discussed in the staff report; and g. A neighborhood meeting was conducted for the project via teleconference on March 30, 2021. With the lifting of pandemic restrictions on gathering, a second neighborhood meeting was conducted on the project site on August 9, 2021. This neighborhood meeting occurred in-person, to give the surrounding community another opportunity to voice their opinion on the development prior:to the Planning Commission hearing. The community's input and the. applicant's response to both neighborhood meetings are discussed in the staff report; and h.. On January 20, 2021, per AB 52, the City sent Tribal Consultation Requests to the Sari Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of 'Luiseno Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians— Kizh Nation, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indian following a.completeness determination for the project. Correspondence in response to AB52 noticing are discussed in the staff report; and i. The Planning Department prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration which incorporates all comments resulting from tribal notifications pursuant to AB 52. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Corridor High, which, envisions high development intensities along Foothill Boulevard, particularly adjacent to city centers. The project proposes a total of 259 apartment units, 1 live-work unit, and 2,253 square feet of commercial space, which is consistent with the General Plan's vision; and b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the, Page 472 PLANNING COMMISSION.RESOLUTION NO. 22-09 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 —WOOD PARTNERS April 13, 2022 Page 3 Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District, which is an area for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium,to high intensity, and where a vibrant pedestrian environment and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods are achieved. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard while transitioning building scale appropriately to the surrounding area; and c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deemed complete, and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan's vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community; and 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports.included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial, Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i)that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter,the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. c. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Page 473 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-09 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 —WOOD PARTNERS April 13, 2022 Page 4 Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2022. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (rEBY: Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: / Matt w R. is, AICP, LEED AP, Secretary I, Matthew R. Burri , AICP, LEED AP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of April 2022, by the following vote-to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DOPP, WILLIAMS, MORALES, BOLING, DANIELS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 474 LOZ EAU ❑RURYLLP T 510.836.4200 1939 Harrison Street,Ste.150 www.!ozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 Oakland,CA 94612 Victgna@lozeaudrury,com Via Email and Overnight Mail April 20, 2022 Chair Oaxaca Janice Reynolds, City Clerk Vice Chair Dopp City of Rancho Cucamonga Commissioner Guglielmo 10500 Civic Center Drive Commissioner Morales Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Commissioner Williams City.clerk@cityofrc.us Planning Commission Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill,Executive Assistant City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us Re: Appeal of Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Design Review DRC2020-00440 for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Dear Chair Oaxaca,Vice Chair Dopp,Honorable Commissioners, Ms. Reynolds,and Ms. Thornhill: I am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility("SAFER") and its members living and/or working in or around the City of Rancho Cucamonga("City")regarding the Planning Commission's decisions of April 13,2022 to approve Design Review DRC2020-00440 for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project,a proposed 260-unit apartment community located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard("Project"),and to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration("MND")prepared for the Project. This appeal is filed pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.14.070,is timely filed within 10 days of the Planning Commission's decision, and is accompanied by the required filing fee of$3,279. The reasons for the appeal are set forth in the attached letters dated October 1,2021 and April 13, 2022,which were submitted to the Planning Commission prior to its decision. Sincerely, f_____re.4 Victoria Yundt LOZEAU DRURY LLP Attachment 3 Page 475 ATTACHMENT 1 LOZ EAU DRURYLLP T 510.836.4200 1939 Harrison Street,Ste.150 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 Oakland,CA 94612 victona@lazeaudrury,cam _.....addiii Via E-mail and US Mail October 1, 2021 Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 vincent.acuna@cityofrc.us Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-00440) Dear Mr. Acuna and Planning Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-0440), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction, use, and maintenance of a 260-unit apartment community, located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("Project"). After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude the IS/MND fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code ("PRC") section 21000, et seq. This comment has been prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE"). Mr. Offerman's comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Mr. Smallwood's comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. SWAPE's comment and the consultants' curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Page 477 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 2 of 31 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project would involve the construction of a 260-unit apartment complex on 5.2 acres. Applicant is requesting to construct a mixed-use development comprising 259 residential units, 2 commercial units, and 1 live-work unit, and a Minor Exception to reduce the number of required parking stalls by 12% within the Community Commercial (CC) District. More specifically, the proposed Project would include the following elements: • Two four-story buildings, with a maximum height of 60 feet; • 259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet; • 1 live-work unit, consisting of two stories and 1,570 square feet; • 3,339 square feet of commercial space (816 square feet in 1 live-work unit and 2,523 square feet of stand-alone commercial space); • 465 parking spaces, with 265 parking spaces located in a below-grade parking garage and the remaining 200 parking spaces located on a surface parking lot on the southern and eastern portions of the Project site; • Approximately 26 bicycle parking spaces; • Approximately 5,500 square feet of indoor amenity space, which includes a 1,600 square-foot lobby/leasing office, a 1,400 square-foot fitness center, and a 1,400 square-foot Club Room in the west building, and a 1,500 square-foot Business Center in the east building; • Two courtyards and a paseo, offering a pool and additional outdoor amenities; • Landscaping surrounding both buildings; • Sidewalks along Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; • Intersection improvements at Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard including lane modifications and restriping; • Creation of a bus stop in front of the Project on Foothill Boulevard; and • Undergrounding of existing Southern California Edison (SCE) overhead 12 kilovolt (kV) power lines along Etiwanda Avenue. IS/MND, p. 1-13. The Project site is located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is bound by Foothill Boulevard, a vacant lot, and condominiums to the north; Etiwanda Avenue and a shopping center to the west; and residential single-family homes to the south and east. The 5.56-acre site comprises two parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 0229-311-14 and 0229-311-15), which are currently vacant and undeveloped. II. LEGAL STANDARD As the California Supreme Court has held, "[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a Page 478 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 3 of 31 nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR." Communities for a Better Env't v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504-505). "Significant environmental effect" is defined very broadly as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." Pub. Res. Code ("PRC") § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial."No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83. "The `foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Communities for a Better Env't v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA). The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an "environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. An EIR is required if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a "fair argument" that the project will have a significant environmental effect. PRC, §§ 21100, 21064. Since "[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process," by allowing the agency "to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR]," negative declarations are allowed only in cases where "the proposed project will not affect the environment at all." Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440. However, mitigation measures may not be construed as project design elements or features in an environmental document under CEQA if such a mischaracterization is significant. See Lotus vs. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645. A "mitigation measure" is a measure designed to minimize a project's significant environmental impacts, PRC § 21002.1(a), while a "project" is defined as including "the Page 479 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 4 of 31 whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). Unlike mitigation measures, project elements are considered prior to making a significance determination. Measures are not technically "mitigation" under CEQA unless they are incorporated to avoid or minimize "significant" impacts. PRC § 21100(b)(3). To ensure that the project's potential environmental impacts are fully analyzed and disclosed, and that the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is considered in depth, mitigation measures that are not included in the project's design should not be treated as part of the project description. Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 654-55, 656 fn.8. Mischaracterization of a mitigation measure as a project design element or feature is "significant," and therefore amounts to a material error, "when it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project's environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures." Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185. Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study "to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and...there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, "may" means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05. Under the "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: This 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Page 480 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 5 of 31 Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument. Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that "it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original). CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project's environmental setting or "baseline." CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2). The CEQA "baseline" is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project's anticipated impacts. CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency's environmental review under CEQA: ...must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25 ("Save Our Peninsula"). As the court of appeal has explained, "the impacts of the project must be measured against the 'real conditions on the ground,- and not against hypothetical permitted levels. Id. at 121-23. III. DISCUSSION A. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (September 24, 2021) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose Page 481 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 6 of 31 residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A. Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, "The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims." Ex. A, pp. 2-3. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that future residents and employees of the commercial spaces will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id., pp. 4-5. This exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id., p. 4. Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project's indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project's location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, Interstate 15 freeway, Auto Club Speedway, etc.) and the high levels of PM 2.5 already present in the ambient air. Id., pp. 10-12. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future employees of the Project. Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id., p. 5. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings' interiors. Ex. A, pp. 12-13. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert's comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597-98 ("under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts"). In addition to assessing the Project's potential health impacts to residents Page 482 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 7 of 31 and employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects' future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the BAAQMD level. Ex. A, pp. 6-10. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review. The failure to address the Project's formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 ("CBIA"). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment's effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 ("CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present"). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA's statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze "impacts on a project's users or residents that arise from the project's effects on the environment." Id. at 800 (emphasis added). The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents and commercial/industrial employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a "project's users and residents" must be addressed in the CEQA process. The Supreme Court's reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA's statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project's effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. "Section 21083(b)(3)'s express language, for example, requires a finding of a `significant effect on the environment' (§ 21083(b)) whenever the `environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, "the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA's enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme." Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the future residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA's safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site. Page 483 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 8 of 31 Because Mr. Offermann's expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts. B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife. Wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have significant impacts on several special status species. An EIR is required to mitigate these impacts. Dr. Smallwood's conclusions were informed by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood's site visit in September 2021. Ms. Smallwood visited the site of the proposed Project on Dr. Smallwood's behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on September 4, 2021. Dr. Smallwood's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B. The wildlife baseline relied upon by the IS/MND is woefully inadequate. Wildlife biologist Dr. Smallwood's review of the impacts to wildlife from the Project concluded that the Project may have significant impacts on several special- status species. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts. According to the IS/MND and Biological Resources Assessment ("BRA"), at least 49 special-status plant species and 52 special-status wildlife species have been documented within the Guasti and surrounding eight quadrangles. IS/MND, p. 4-14. A California Natural Diversity Database ("CNDDB") search also yielded four special-status species with occurrences that overlapped with the biological survey area ("BSA") used for the Project, which includes the entire Project site plus a surrounding 500-foot buffer. These special status species included the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parry! var. parryi). Id. While no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the reconnaissance field survey for the Project site, "marginal habitat" for two special-status wildlife species, the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), were identified during the database review is present in the biological survey area. Id. However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, the IS/MND fails to adequately address and mitigate Project impacts to special-status species. The IS/MND's baseline for biological impacts is inadequate, incomplete, and understates the biological values at the Project site for several reasons. See Ex. B, pp. 6-7. First, the IS/MND improperly relies on a single reconnaissance field survey that was insufficient and conducted using minimal effort at the most inappropriate time of the day. According to the IS/MND and BRA, a reconnaissance field survey was conducted by AECOM (2021) on September 24, 2020. See IS/MND, App. B, pp. 5-6. A botanist Page 484 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 9 of 31 visited the site for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon (14:00 to 15:30 hours), at a time when, as Dr. Smallwood points out, wildlife was least likely to be detected. Ex. B, p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). In fact, temperatures were reportedly 96° to 99° F, which Dr. Smallwood explains is "too hot for a wildlife survey." Id., p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). The IS/MND reports that "no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey." IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, Dr. Smallwood notes that "this report follows from a survey of insufficient effort at the most inappropriate time of day," and as a result, "there should be no surprise that special-status species were undetected." Ex. B, p. 5. Because the IS/MND fails to report which, if any, species of wildlife were detected by the botanist, Dr. Smallwood finds this lack of reporting suggests that "the botanist likely saw no wildlife in the heat of the middle of the afternoon." Id. Consequently, whether the BRA is substantial evidence is not apparent from the face of the document or the IS/MND. Second, the IS/MND misuses the CNDDB. Ex. B, p. 6. When discussing that the CNDDB search yielded four special-status species—i.e. coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry's spineflower—with occurrences that overlapped the BSA, the IS/MND states that "the CNDDB records of these four species had non-specific locations which were not mapped precisely to the locations where the species were observed and each individual observation is a square mile or greater in size; so it is not known whether the observation was actually made precisely within the biological survey area." IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, this statement is flawed. As Dr. Smallwood explains, "CNDDB records are mapped accurately, but exact locations are often not shared publicly as a means to protect the species." Ex. B, p. 6. According to Dr. Smallwood: CNDDB records are intended to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of a special-status species in the project area, but not the species' exact locations. Nor is CNDDB intended to support determinations of species' absence, as the IS/MND implies. CNDDB is intended to flag the occurrences of species in the area, not to provide an exact accounting of where the species is located at the moment. Id. Additionally, the IS/MND further misrepresents CNDDB by implying that the older records are dismissible. See id. The IS/MND states that "...CNDDB records that overlap with the biological survey area are 19 years old or more and since that time, the area has been developed substantially. As a result, it is possible many locations no longer exist. Current site conditions do not provide suitable habitat for these species and none are known to occur or expected to occur within the Project site or vicinity." IS/MND, p. 4- 14. Dr. Smallwood explains that this statement is a misrepresentation of CNDDB because: CNDDB does not imply that species are static, or that locations where they were mapped previously are the only locations where the species would be found later. Wildlife populations are spatially dynamic, shifting Page 485 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 10 of 31 centers of activity every generation or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979), so it would be inappropriate of CNDDB to assert that locations of past occupancy should still be locations of current occupancy. For this reason, users of CNDDB typically determine whether CNDDB records exist within a 5-mile radius of a proposed project. Occurrences within 5 miles serve as indicators that the species could also occur at the project site, and if so, then protocol-level detection surveys should be performed. Ex. B, p. 6. Given the paucity of the coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry's spineflower in San Bernardino County, the Project's baseline should be informed by protocol level surveys that can determine the presence or absence of these species at the Project site. Third, the surveys conducted for the Project do not provide substantial evidence of the presence or absence of special-status species that are known in the vicinity. The IS/MND asserts that "the BSA generally does not provide suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species." IS/MND, p. 4-14. Dr. Smallwood states that "[t]his assertion, however, lacks evidence in the form of detection survey results." Ex. B, p. 6. According to Dr. Smallwood, detection surveys are designed by species' experts to provide "the best chance for detecting the targeted species by applying the methods and survey effort most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present." Id. Here, the botanist that was charged with surveying the Project site for 90 minutes in the middle of the hot afternoon failed "to come anywhere close to having performed a detection survey for any species of wildlife." Id. As a result, neither the IS/MND nor the BRA was justified in asserting that the Project site lacks special-status species of wildlife. Hence, Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys should be performed, and subsequently assessed and reported in an EIR. Id., p. 22. Furthermore, due to the absence of detection surveys, the IS/MND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. Ex. B, pp. 6-7. Dr. Smallwood states that the "IS/MND repeatedly speculates that for this or that species, anthropogenic disturbances prevent their occurrences," such as the IS/MND exemplifying one such disturbance as routine mowing of the site. Ex. B, p. 6 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-14-4-15). However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, "[t]he IS/MND offers no evidence in defense of its premise that routine mowing precludes special-status species of wildlife." Id., pp. 6-7. As evidence, Dr. Smallwood calls attention to the IS/MND's failure "to identify the Crotch bumble bee host plants that allegedly occur in low density," as well as "make the case that the host plants in question are the only plants useable by Crotch bumble bee." Id., p. 7 (citing IS/MND, p. 4-14). Such failures indicate that the IS/MND "relies on generalities rather than specifics, and on speculation rather than evidence." Id. Additionally, the IS/MND suggests that special-status species, such as the western yellow bat, were killed off by house cats, driven away by traffic noise, and inhibited by the low supply of insect prey. IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, p. 7. But as Dr. Smallwood notes, "[n]one of these suggestions are backed by evidence, and no effort has been made to actually look for special-status species on the site." Ex. B, p. 7. Dr. Page 486 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 11 of 31 Smallwood refers to the IS/MND's discussion of the Crotch bumble bee as a prime example: In the case of the Crotch bumble bee, the IS/MND reports, "No bumble bee species were observed during the field survey." (There is only one species of Crotch bumble bee.) This reporting ignores the fact that Crotch bumble bees are unlikely to be out and about in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures range 96° to 99° F, as was reportedly the conditions during the one survey performed — a survey performed not by a wildlife ecologist or an entomologist, but by a botanist. The report of having not detected Crotch bumble bee was a meaningless report, and serves only to misrepresent how wildlife ecologists determine whether a species is present or likely absent from a site. Id., p. 7. As a result, the conclusion that the Project will not significantly impact the Crutch bumble bee and western yellow bat is not supported by substantial evidence and a fair argument exists that the Project may have significant impacts on the special- status species. Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys for multiple special- status species of wildlife be implemented to inform an EIR. Id., pp. 6, 22. Only with an accurate baseline could the IS/MND purport to assess the impacts on these special- status species. Fourth, in addition to these inadequate survey methods and unidentified baselines, the IS/MND and its BRA understate the range of animal species that are likely present on the Project site. While the IS/MND's BRA determines occurrence likelihood to be low for the western yellow bat and Crotch bumble bee, its determinations for all other species is unreported. IS/MND, App. B, pp. 8-9. The BRA refers the reader to Appendix D for determination of all species to be considered, but Appendix D is empty on the copy of the BRA report downloaded from City of Rancho Cucamonga's website. See id., p. 8 & Appendix D. Contrary to the IS/MND and BRA reports, Dr. Smallwood's review of eBird and iNaturalist identified no less than 60 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife and the Crotch bumble bee as having been seen very close to the project site, seen nearby, seen within the region, or whose geographic range overlaps the project site. Ex. B, pp. 7, 8-10 (Table 2) (listing species that Dr. Smallwood considers potentially occurring on the project site at one time or another or periodically). Ms. Smallwood also detected 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during her 108- minute site visit on September 4, 2021. See Ex. B, p. 3 (Table 1) (listing species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site). She saw Cooper's hawk and American kestrel (Photos 2 and 3, p. 3), California scrub-jays and American crows (Photos 4 and 5, p. 4), Say's phoebe and a great blue heron (Photos 6 and 7, p. 4), and side-blotched lizard and California ground squirrel (Photos 8 and 9, p. 5), among other species. Id., pp. 2-5. Based on Ms. Smallwood's observations, Dr. Smallwood writes: Page 487 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 12 of 31 [Ms. Smallwood's] survey outcome indicates that the site of the proposed project continues to serve as valuable habitat to at least 24 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it likely serves as habitat to many more species. It also holds the potential to produce many new birds, mammals and reptiles for years to come. A fair argument can be made for the need to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife, and for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife Id., p. 2. Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood points out the significance of Ms. Smallwood's observance of California ground squirrels on the adjacent property across the street from the Project site. Dr. Smallwood states: Ms. Smallwood's detection of California ground squirrels on the open field across the street indicates that ground squirrels likely also occur on the project site. The occurrence of ground squirrels in the project area is significant because many special-status species are found in association with ground squirrels and their burrow complexes. Ground squirrels are prey of large raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk and Swainson's hawk. Ground squirrels are also prey of terrestrial carnivores such as American badger, which specialize on ground squirrels. Ground squirrels also construct subterranean habitat used by many species such as burrowing owl. The occurrence of ground squirrel warrants detection surveys for multiple special-status species that associate with this species. Id., p. 5. Moreover, "[b]ecause ground squirrels occur in the project area," Dr. Smallwood also recommends that "breeding-season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented (CDFW 2012)," but only "implemented prior to the circulation of an EIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts." Id. p. 22. Thus, given the close proximity of these special-status species, the IS/MND fails as a matter of law to analyze the impacts to these species and their habitat. In conclusion, the IS/MND's failure to adequately evaluate the significance of the impacts to special-status species of wildlife violates CEQA. Thus, the Project requires an EIR to properly mitigate wildlife impacts of the Project. ii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity. Neither the IS/MND nor the BRA assess the lost breeding capacity of birds that would result from the Project. See Ex. B, pp. 7, 11. In so doing, the IS/MND fails to analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity on bird species likely to nest on the ground and in trees within the BSA. Id., p. 7. While habitat loss Page 488 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 13 of 31 results in the immediate numerical decline of birds and other animals, it also results in a permanent loss of productive capacity. Id. Dr. Smallwood cites a recent study that documented a "29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years," a decline which he says was "driven by multiple factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation." Id. (citing Rosenberg et al. 2019). Here, the IS/MND and BRA identify only mourning dove as a bird species likely to nest on the ground, and only house finch, northern mockingbird, and California scrub- jay as species likely to nest in trees in the area. IS/MND, p. 4-15; IS/MND, App. B, p. 9. In reality, however, Dr. Smallwood reports that "many more species of birds are capable of nesting on and around the project site," especially since a lot of bird species are considered ground-nesters. Ex. B, p. 7. Dr. Smallwood cites two studies that show bird nesting densities that were between 32.8 and 35.8 bird nests per acre, for an average of 34.3 bird nests per acre. Id. (citing Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), respectively). Assuming nesting density at the Project site is a fifth of the 34.3 average reported, then 6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied by the Project's 5.2 acres of habit, Dr. Smallwood predicts that 35 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. Id., p. 11. Based on an average of 2.9 fledglings per nest, the Project would prevent the production of 102 new birds per year. Id. (citing Young (1948)). Based on Dr. Smallwood's calculations, "[a]fter 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 11,600 birds." Id. (emphasis added). The potential loss of 11,600 birds in California over the first century following construction of this Project easily qualifies as a significant and substantial impact that has not been analyzed. An EIR is required to fully analyze the Project's impact on lost breeding capacity, and to mitigate that impact. Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project's impacts from habitat loss, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22. iii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential cumulative impacts on habitat fragmentation. The IS/MND does not assess the likelihood of cumulative impacts on wildlife, especially from habitat fragmentation in the vicinity. Ex. B, p. 11 . In addition to habit loss, habitat fragmentation, known as the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can also further diminish the productive capacity of the Project site. Id. (citing Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the Project site, which has led to a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area. Id. As a result, each of these patches of open space, including the Project's 5.2 acres, "is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species." Id. Because a fair argument exists that developing a currently undeveloped site that is likely suitable habitat for many species of wildlife will further fragment wildlife habitat in this area, there is a fair argument that the Project may contribute to habitat Page 489 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 14 of 31 fragmentation. Thus, habitat fragmentation is a cumulative effect of this Project that should be analyzed in an EIR, and mitigated accordingly. See Ex. B, p. 22. iv. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife movement. The IS/MND fails to address impacts to wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor. See IS/MND, pp. 4-16-4-17; Ex. B, p. 11 . In doing so, the IS/MND improperly dismisses the Project's potential to significantly impact wildlife movement reasoning that the BSA "occurs within an industrial center of the Los Angeles Basin and does not occur within a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site," and "as a result, direct impacts to a regional wildlife movement corridor would not occur." IS/MND, App. B, pp. 10-11; Ex. B, p. 11. These conclusions rely on a false CEQA standard. Ex. B, p. 11. As Dr. Smallwood states, "[t]he primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor." Id.; see also CEQA Guidelines, App. G, pp. 333-34 (stating that the CEQA significance threshold is whether, among other things, a project will "[i]nterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species...."). Impacts to wildlife movement may occur with or without the presence of a wildlife corridor. Ex. B, p. 11. Dr. Smallwood writes: A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes one of the last of a diminishing suite of open space patches within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). Id., p. 11. Hence, the Project "would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging opportunities, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes." Id. Because the Project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region, Dr. Smallwood agrees that an EIR needs to be prepared to address the Project's impacts on wildlife movement in the region. Moreover, the Project site is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is one of four major North American migration routes for birds. While migratory birds travel the flyway on their annual north-south migration, they stopover at areas with suitable habitat and food supplies. As the IS/MND's BRA notes, many birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA") and California Fish and Game Code ("CFGC") §§ 3503-3503.5 "are likely to use the BSA for breeding, migratory stopovers, and local dispersal." IS/MND, App. B, p. 9 (emphasis added). However, no analysis of any direct impacts to wildlife movement, including birds' stop-over habitat, is included in the IS/MND and its appendix. Page 490 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 15 of 31 Lastly, the IS/MND and BRA acknowledge that construction from the Project would have indirect impacts on wildlife movement, stating that the Project's "construction activities (i.e., increased noise, human presence, vibration) would likely result in wildlife avoidance of the area during the construction time frame." Id. at 11-12 (emphasis added). Such indirect and direct impacts could significantly affect wildlife movement, and should be addressed in an EIR and mitigated accordingly. Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project's impacts from interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22. v. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife by window collisions. Dr. Smallwood's report concludes that the Project will have significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. See Ex. B, pp. 12-18. But neither the IS/MND nor the BRA express any concern about bird-window collision impacts, nor do they propose any mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for such impacts to special- status species of bird. Id., p. 12. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to window collisions is especially important because "[w]indow collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality." Id. According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project's buildings, at 60 feet tall, would extend into much of the bird traffic observed by Ms. Smallwood at the Project site on September 4, 2021. Id. The IS/MND's rendering of the project shows facades composed of extensive structural glass, which Dr. Smallwood notes, "would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds." Id. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyaway, and Ms. Smallwood's observations at the time of her site visit further confirmed that birds fly through the Project's airspace, even during the nonmigratory season. Id. Based on Dr. Smallwood's review, at least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the Project area, see id. pp. 8-10 (Table 2), most of which "have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations." Id., p. 12 (citing Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Dr. Smallwood reviewed a number of studies in order to calculate the number of bird collisions that would occur annually as a result of the Project. Ex. B, p. 13. According to his calculations, each m2 of glass would result in an average of 0.073 bird deaths per year. Id. Dr. Smallwood then looked at the building design for the Project and estimated the Project would include at least 3,196 m2 of glass on its facades. Based on the estimated 3,196 m2 of glass on its façades and the 0.073 bird deaths per year, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project would result in at least 234 bird deaths Page 491 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 16 of 31 per year. Id. Even more significant is the 100-year toll from this average annual fatality rate, which would be at least 23,363 bird deaths. Id. As Dr. Smallwood correctly points out, "[i]f the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 234 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts." Id. Considering the list of bird-window collision factors that Dr. Smallwood stressed should be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed Project, Ex. B, pp. 13-17, 22-23, he has suggested a number of mitigation measures. Id., pp. 17-18. As a starting point, before construction, [a]ny new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity." Id., p. 17. Dr. Smallwood explains: [Preconstruction] surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post- construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective. Id., p. 17. However, with regard to most of the known or suspected collision risk factors that Dr. Smallwood lists, he warns that "the proposed project's design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk." Id. Therefore, Dr. Smallwood suggests the following: Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight. Id. Dr. Smallwood also notes the importance of post-construction fatality monitoring, which he says "should be an essential feature of any new building project." Id. In addition, for mitigation measures involving the siting and design of the Project, Dr. Smallwood suggests: (1) retrofitting to reduce impacts by marking windows, managing outdoor landscape vegetation, managing indoor landscape vegetation, and managing nocturnal lighting; (2) siting and designing to minimize impacts by deciding on location of structure, deciding on façade and orientation, selecting type and sizes of windows, designing to minimize transparency through two parallel façades, designing to minimize views of interior plants, and landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs; and (3) monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts by systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns, and adjusting light management, window marking, and other measures as needed. Ex. Page 492 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 17 of 31 B, pp. 17-18. Dr. Smallwood also recommends that the use of compensatory mitigation be incorporated at any new building project. Id., p. 23. Thus, because many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the Proposed project, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address and mitigate this potential impact. vi. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project. Dr. Smallwood identifies the serious impacts that increased traffic has on wildlife. Ex. B, pp. 18-20. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to vehicle collisions is especially important because "traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife," across North America. Id., p. 18 (citing Forman et al. 2003). In the United States alone, estimates for "avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year." Id. (citing Loss et al. 2014). As Dr. Smallwood explains: Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Increased use of existing roads will increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts will far exceed the impacts of land conversion to residential use for a warehouse. Id., pp. 18-19. Furthermore, a recent study conducted on traffic-caused wildlife mortality found "1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California." Id., p. 18 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Hence, as Dr. Smallwood points out, an analysis is needed to determine whether increased traffic generated by the Project would result in impacts to local wildlife. Id., p. 19. The IS/MND anticipates that the proposed Project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled, which translates to 5,979,430 annual vehicle miles traveled. IS/MND, pp. 4-9, 4-23; Ex. B, p. 18. The additional 16,382 daily miles traveled that is expected from the Project will undoubtedly result in collisions with wildlife. Ex. B, p. 19. As Dr. Smallwood explains, this additional 16,382 daily miles driven as a result of the Project is "a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating." Id. (citing Photos 10 and 11, Ex. B, pp. 19-20). However, "[d]espite the obvious risk to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the IS/MND does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the Project site." Ex. B, p. 19. Page 493 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 18 of 31 To predict the road mortality of wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, Dr. Smallwood analyzed the data from the study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality in Contra Costa County. Id., p. 20 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). By inputting estimates of vehicle miles per wildlife fatalities calculated using the Contra Costa County study, i.e. 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality, Dr. Smallwood predicts: Based on the daily VMT predicted by the IS/MND, the project would generate 5,979,430 vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality, would predict 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 163,820 wildlife fatalities. Ex. B, p. 20. Based on Dr. Smallwood's assumptions and calculations, the traffic generated by the Project would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. Id. Dr. Smallwood also notes that "mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible," and therefore, "need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project." Id. Specifically, Dr. Smallwood suggests compensatory mitigation in the form of "funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures," and "donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities." Id., p. 23. Moreover, wildlife that will be run over by the Project's additional traffic may include special-status species of wildlife such as the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus). Although these two special-status species were not observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance field survey or Ms. Smallwood's site visit, the CNDDB search yielded occurrences for both the coast horned lizard and Los Angeles pocket mouse that overlapped with the Project's biological survey area. IS/MND, p. 4-14. Regardless of whether these special-status species appear on the Project site, they do cross roads over which traffic from the Project will travel. The IS/MND fails to recognize at all this potential significant impact of the Project. Because a fair argument exists that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife in the vicinity, an EIR must be prepared to assess this impact and identify appropriate mitigation. vii. The IS/MND fails to adequately address the Project's potential cumulative impacts on wildlife. The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts to wildlife from the Project by improperly implying that cumulative impacts are in reality only residual impacts as a result of incomplete mitigation from project-level impacts. Ex. B, p. 21. For example, the IS/MND states: Page 494 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 19 of 31 As previously discussed, impacts related to the proposed Project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed Project's contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. IS/MND, p. 4-78. However, the IS/MND's implied standard is not the standard of cumulative effects required under CEQA. Ex. B, p. 21 . CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the required cumulative analysis. See 14 CCR § 15130; PRC § 21083(b)(2). According to Dr. Smallwood, cumulative effects for wildlife "can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity (Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale." Ex. B, p. 21 . Here, the IS/MND's cumulative "analysis" is based on flawed logic. The conclusion that the Project will have no cumulative impact because each individual impact has been reduced to a less-than-significant level relies on the exact argument CEQA's cumulative impact analysis is meant to protect against. The entire purpose of the cumulative impact analysis is to prevent the situation where mitigation occurs to address project-specific impacts, without looking at the bigger picture. This argument, applied over and over again, has resulted in major environmental damage, and is a major reason why CEQA was enacted. As the Court stated in CBE v. CRA: Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at 114 (citations omitted). Even if the IS/MND was applying the accurate CEQA standard, which would mean that the cumulative effects analysis would be nothing more than an analysis of mitigation efficiency, Dr. Smallwood points out "that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds." Ex. B, p. 21. Notwithstanding, the IS/MND misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR must be prepared to include an adequate, serious analysis of the Project's cumulative impacts on wildlife. viii. The pre-construction surveys identified in the IS/MND are not sufficient to address potential impacts to birds and bats that may be present at the site. Page 495 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 20 of 31 Dr. Smallwood has reviewed the proposed wildlife impact mitigation identified in the IS/MND related to pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats (i.e. Mitigation Measure BIO-1). See IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, pp. 21-22. Although Dr. Smallwood agrees with the need for pre-construction surveys for birds and bats at the Project site, he notes that pre-construction surveys will come too late either to disclose the Project's anticipated impacts or to fully mitigate impacts to birds and bats. Ex. B, p. 21. As Dr. Smallwood explains: Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts, let alone to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; they are not even designed to assess impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys. Id., p. 21. By failing to determine the actual baseline of bird's and bat's reliance on the site for roosting, nesting, and foraging and instead waiting within seven days prior to the start of construction to determine what roosts, nests, birds, and bats may suffer impacts from the Project, the IS/MND fails to evaluate and mitigate the Project's potential significant impacts to nesting birds and bats. Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be implemented for the Project before pre-construction surveys are performed. Id., pp. 21-22. In addition to detection surveys and preconstruction surveys being performed, an EIR should be prepared detailing how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Id., p. 22. C. The IS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project's Air Quality Impacts. The IS/MND for the Project relies on emissions calculated from CalEEMod.2016.3.2. IS/MND, p. 4-8; Ex. C, pp. 1-2. This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a project's construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND, resulting in an underestimation of the Project's emissions. Ex. C, p. 2. Because the IS/MND uses incorrect estimates for emissions, its air quality analysis and GHG emissions analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project's emissions. The particular errors identified by SWAPE are discussed below. These errors should be Page 496 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 21 of31 corrected in a subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project. SWAPE's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit C. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated reduction of land use size. Based on the IS/MND, the Project proposes to build "259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet." IS/MND, p. 1-13. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the correct number of residential units (i.e. 259 apartments), but the incorrect square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area (i.e. reduction of the default value of 259,000- to 228,000-SF). IS/MND, App. A, pp. 25, 29; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 23, 27; Ex. C, pp. 4-5. Further review of the model's output files indicates that the land use size was reduced from the CalEEMod default value without adequate explanation or justification. IS/MND, App. A, p. 29; IS/MND, App. F, p. 27; Ex. C, p. 5. The CalEEMod User's Guide requires that any changes to the default models be justified. Ex. C, p. 5 (citing CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, pp. 2, 9). According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "Site Plan; Project population." IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23. Given that the IS/MND states that the apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF, the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185- SF to 354,053-SF. Ex. C, p. 5. However, the IS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use, and therefore, the reduction to the default floor surface area is unsubstantiated. Id. This change also is not mentioned or justified in the IS/MND and associated appendices. SWAPE explains: This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model's calculations. The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts). Ex. C, p. 5 (citing CalEEMod User Guide, p. 28). By including an unsubstantiated reduction to the floor surface area of the Project's residential units, the model underestimates the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., p. 5. ii. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated reductions to architectural and area coating emission factors. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alt Cuvee Mixed- Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors. IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, pp. 5-6. The Page 497 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 22 of 31 nonresidential exterior and interior architectural area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default 100 g/L to 50 g/L. IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, pp. 5-6. The explanation provided in the file is: "SCAQMD Building Envelope 50 g/L." IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24; Ex. C, p. 6. But neither the IS/MND nor the associated appendices mention or justify these changes. According to SWAPE, these changes are unsupported for two reasons: First, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the building envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113, whatsoever. Second, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only building envelope coatings during Project construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate. Ex. C, p. 6. Such unsubstantiated reductions cause an issue because the model uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project's reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound ("ROG/VOC") emissions. Id. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model could underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions. Id. Thus, the IS/MND's emissions for architectural and area coating should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. iii. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated reduction to gas fireplace values. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model demonstrates a reduction to gas fireplaces values were manually altered to include no gas fireplaces. IS/MND, App. A, p. 28; IS/MND, App. F, p. 26; Ex. C, pp. 6-7. Neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values. Ex. C, p. 6. However, the IS/MND indicates that the east building would include a courtyard with an outdoor fireplace, meaning that at least one fireplace would be installed on the Project site. IS/MND, p. 1-13; Ex. C, p. 7. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the number of gas fireplaces, the model could underestimate the Project's area-source operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Ex. C, p. 7. iv. The IS/MND relies on incorrect CO2 intensity factors. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the CO2 intensity factors for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" and "Alta Cuvee Bus Bay" were officially reduced from 702.44- to 531 .98- and 471 .24-pounds per megawatt hour ("lbs/MWhr"), respectively. IS/MND, App. A, pp. 30, 91; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 28, 87; Ex. C, p. 2. Page 498 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 23 of 31 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justifications for these changes are: • Electricity supplied by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility, which is not available as input selection. SCE used as surrogate • SB 100 mandates 44% renewable by end of 2024. SCE CO2 factor assumes 40% renewables when operations begin. SCE 2019 power mix = 36% renewables IS/MND, App. A, pp. 26, 91; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 23, 86. These justifications are insufficient. Ex. C, p. 2. Based on SWAPE's review of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Content Label, the City's CO2 intensity factor is 630 lbs/MWhr, which means that the CO2 intensity factor is underestimated by approximately 98- and 159-lbs/MWhr, respectively. Id., pp. 2-3. Neither the IS/MND nor its associated appendices provide a citation or further justification for the updated carbon intensity factors. Such inconsistencies pose an issue because the model uses the CO2 intensity factor to calculate the Project's GHG emissions associated with electricity use. Id., p. 3. By including an underestimated carbon intensity factor, the models underestimate the Project's potential GHG emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id. v. The IS/MND fails to model all required parking. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates that the required parking is underestimated in the model. IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23; Ex. C, pp. 3-4. According to the IS/MND, the Project is pending approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the amount of required parking by 12%, from 526 to 465 spaces. IS/MND, p. 1-15, Table 1-2. However, this request is yet to be approved. Id., p. 1-15; Ex. C, p. 4. As SWAPE points out, "the model should have included the entire amount of required parking in order to conduct the most conservative analysis." Ex. C, p. 4. But review of the output files indicates that the Project's model only includes 465 parking spaces, rather than the 526 spaces required by the City. IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23; Ex. C, p. 4. Hence, the total amount of parking is underestimated by 61 spaces. Ex. C, p. 4. But this underestimation is incorrect since there is no way to verify whether the City will approve or deny the Project's requested parking exception. Id. As such, the potential underestimation affects CalEEMod calculations for the model's VOC emissions from architectural coatings and energy impacts. Id. By failing to include the entire amount of required parking spaces, the model underestimates the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id. Page 499 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 24 of 31 vi. The IS/MND relies on incorrect solid waste generation rates. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates that the solid waste generation rates for that of the proposed Project were reduced in the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project's emissions. IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 7-8. The total solid waste generation rate was cumulatively decreased by 23.71 tons per year. Ex. C, p. 7. According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "Remove duplicate waste generation." IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24. But the IS/MND estimates that the proposed Project's "operational activities would generate approximately 1.6 tons per day of solid waste during Project operation." IS/MND, p. 4-73 & n.99. Based on the solid waste generation rate that the IS/MND uses, the Project's operational activities would generate approximately 584 tons per year of solid waste. Ex. C, p. 8. However, the model's output files indicate that its emissions estimates for the Project's total solid waste generation of 123.6 tons per year, which includes 119.6 tons per year for 259 mid-rise apartments, 0.46 tons per year of solid waste for 1 live-work unit (referred to as a condo/townhouse by the model), 0.03 tons per year of solid waste for outdoor amenity space (referred to as a city park), and 3.51 tons per year of solid waste for the commercial space (referred to as a strip mall). IS/MND, App. A, p. 85; IS/MND, App. F, p. 82; Ex. C, p. 8. As SWAPE points out, the model's solid waste is underestimated by 460.4 tons per year, and therefore, inconsistent with information included in the IS/MND. Ex. C, p. 8. Compared to the solid waste generation rate used by the IS/MND, the Project's model relies on solid waste generation rates that are grossly underestimated, and as a result, the model underestimates the Project's GHG emissions from operational activities. Id. Thus, the IS/MND's emissions for solid waste should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id. vii. The IS/MND relies on the use of underestimated operational vehicle fleet mix percentages. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates that the operational vehicle fleet mix percentages were underestimated within the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project's mobile-source operational emissions. IS/MND, App. A, pp. 28-29; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 26-27; Ex. C, pp. 9-10. According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justification for these changes is: "Residential Trips." IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, p. 9. However, neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values with substantial evidence. Ex. C, pp. 9-10. By including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, the model could underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., p. 10. Page 500 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 25 of 31 viii. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated reductions to off-road equipment horsepower values. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates several reductions to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values. IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 10-11. According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justification for these changes is: "Project Inventory." IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24; Ex. C, p. 10. However, neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values with substantial evidence. Ex. C, p. 10. By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values, the model could underestimate the Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., pp. 10-11. ix. The IS/MND relies on the incorrect application of construction-related mitigation measures. Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model relies on an incorrect application of the construction mitigation measure of "Water Exposed Area." IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 11-12. No adequate justification is provided in the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table for the inclusion of this specific mitigation measure. Ex. C, p. 11 . Instead, the file mentions "SCAQMD Rule 403" as a "Construction Off-Road Equipment Mitigation." IS/MND, App. A, p. 24; IS/MND, App. F, p. 22; Ex. C, p. 11 . However, neither the IS/MND nor the appendices include these as formal mitigation measures, which means they are project design features making it impossible to guarantee whether the measures used in the model would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. See IS/MND, pp. 5-1-5-4; Ex. C, pp. 11-12. By the IS/MND using the construction-related mitigation measures in the model, it is artificially reducing its emissions measures. Ex. C, p. 12. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project's construction emissions and the mitigation cannot be relied upon. Id. Thus, the design features should be included as mitigation measures. Id., p. 25. x. The IS/MND relies on the incorrect application of operational mitigation measures. Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model also relies on an incorrect application of several operational mitigation measures related to energy (i.e. Exceed Title 24, Install High Efficiency Lighting, Install Energy Efficient Appliances), area (i.e. No Hearths Installed, Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies), and water (i.e. Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet, Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet, Use Water Efficient Irrigation System). IS/MND, App. A, pp. 72, 77, 79; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 70, 75, 77; Ex. C, pp. 12-14. The file provided no adequate justification for any of these operational mitigation measures used to reduce operational-related emissions as a result of the Page 501 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 26 of 31 Project, but includes a justification in the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table for area-related operational mitigation measures, which is "SCAQMD Rule 1113." IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, p. 13. However, neither the IS/MND nor the appendices include these as formal mitigation measures, meaning they are considered project design features, which makes it impossible to guarantee whether the measures used in the model would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. See IS/MND, pp. 5-1-5-4; Ex. C, pp. 13-14. By the IS/MND using the operational-related mitigation measures in the model, it is artificially reducing its emissions measures. Ex. C, pp. 13-14. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and the mitigation cannot be relied upon. Id., p. 14. Thus, the design features should be included as mitigation measures. Id., p. 25. In conclusion, as a result of these errors in the IS/MND, the Project's construction-related and operational emissions were underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project's air quality impacts. D. An Updated Air Model Analysis Is Needed to Determine Whether the Project Will Have a Significant Air Quality Impact. Review of the IS/MND's air model analysis demonstrates that the IS/MND fails to provide summer and winter CalEEMod output files. Ex. C, pp. 14-15. To calculate the Project's air quality analysis, the IS/MND uses the CalEEMod.2016.3.2 to calculate construction-related and operational emissions. IS/MND, p. 4-8. According to SWAPE, the CalEEMod is required to provide three types of output files: annual, summer, and winter. Ex. C, p. 14 (citing CalEEMod User's Guide, p. 61). SWAPE further explains: As demonstrated above, the CalEEMod summer and winter output files provide peak daily emissions estimates in pounds per day ("lbs/day"). Furthermore, the IS/MND quantifies the Project's construction-related and operational maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions and compares them to the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Id., pp. 14-15 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-8, Table 4.3-1; 4-9, Table 4.3-2). However, SWAPE's review of the IS/MND's air quality assessment and GHG assessment demonstrates that the IS/MND failed to disclose the summer and winter CalEEMod output files. Ex. C, p. 15. Because the IS/MND fails to provide the summer and winter output files, the IS/MND's air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment, and properly disclose all CalEEMod output files. E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. Page 502 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 27 of 31 One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter ("DPM"), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease. The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than- significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis ("HRA"). Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND justifies its "less-than-significant" health risk impact conclusion by stating that "low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment combined with the brevity of the construction period and local meteorological characteristics indicate that the proposed Project would not generate substantial emissions over an extended period of time that could cause a health risk to adjacent land uses." IS/MND, p. 4-11. Additionally, the IS/MND claims that "the size of the Project site indicates that only during a limited portion of construction activities would heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment be operating within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, and all construction equipment would be maintained in accordance with the CARB Portable Engine Air Toxics Control Measure and the Off-Road Diesel Regulation to control emissions to the maximum extent feasible." Id. In addition, with regard to potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the IS/MND's justification is that "[o]peration of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area," because the Project "would be consistent with existing surrounding land use developments," and "does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations." Id., p. 4- 12. According to the IS/MND this means that operation of the Project "would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations." Id. However, SWAPE's review of the IS/MND and its evaluation of potential health risk impacts for the Project found that the IS/MND incorrectly concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact on nearby receptors, and completely failed to conduct a quantified construction or operational HRA. Ex. C, pp. 15- 17. SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health impacts, as well as the less-than-significant health impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. Id. Page 503 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 28 of 31 First, the IS/ND fails to quantitatively evaluate construction-related and operational toxic air contaminants ("TACs"), or make a reasonable effort to connect emissions to health impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors. Ex. C, p. 16. SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. Id. In failing to connect TAC emissions to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Ex. C, p. 16. See Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510. Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Ex. C, pp. 16-17. The IS/MND's conclusion is also inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment's ("OEHHA") most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015. See "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. Ex. C, p. 17. The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. Id. Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. Id. An EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts. Id. Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, SWAPE found that the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD's specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. Ex. C, p. 17. Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted. F. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact. Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. Ex. C., pp. 17-21 . SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 100 meters and Page 504 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 29 of 31 analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. Id. SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately 100 meters away over the course of Project construction are approximately 27.1 in one million for infants and 23.7 in one million for children. Id., p. 20. Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of a Project operation of 30 years is approximately 60 in one million. Id. The risks to infants, children, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in one million. SWAPE's analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. A health risk assessment must be prepared disclosing the health risk impacts from toxic air contaminants. G. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions of 2,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year ("MT CO2E/year"), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. IS/MND, p. 4-31, Table 4.8-1. Furthermore, the IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan ("CAP") in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact. IS/MND, pp. 4-31-4-32. However, SWAPE concludes that the IS/MND's GHG analysis, as well as its subsequent less-than-significant conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. Ex. C, pp. 21-25. First, as SWAPE points out, the IS/MND's GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model, as discussed above. Id., pp. 21-22. As a result, GHG emissions are underestimated and the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Second, the IS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. SWAPE notes that when compared to the correct quantitative threshold, the Project's GHG impacts are demonstrably significant. Id., p. 22. Third, SWAPE's updated analysis indicates a potential significant impact in GHG emissions. Id., pp. 22-23. As such, SWAPE recommends, "an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines." Id., p. 23. Page 505 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 30 of 31 Fourth, the IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying CARB's Scoping Plan. Ex. C, pp. 23-24. Based on SWAPE's quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards, SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND's GHG significance determination regarding the Project's consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Id., p. 24. Fifth, the IS/MND also fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying SCAG's RTP/SCS. Id., pp. 24-25. SWAPE's quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards concludes that the IS/MND's GHG significance determination concerning the Project's consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Id., p. 25. SWAPE's analysis demonstrated a potentially significant health risk impact from the project that necessitates mitigation, and it proposes that the project design features that are incorrectly applied as mitigation measures by the model be implemented formally as mitigation measures in order to adequately reduce construction and operational emissions. In addition to implementing these measures, an EIR should be included with updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analysis. H. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact. Review of the proposed Project and relevant appendices regarding the Project's noise impacts from construction activities provides substantial evidence that the IS/MND improperly analyzed construction noise levels and failed to adequately mitigate significant construction noise impacts. Based on the noise levels presented in the IS/MND, "the equipment is expected to generate noise levels ranging from approximately 70.3 dBA to 82.6 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet." IS/MND, p. 4-46— 4-47. The IS/MND notes that "construction noise levels would exceed the residential and commercial construction noise standards at the majority of nearby sensitive receptors," and as result, impacts related to on-site construction noise would be significant without mitigation. Id. at 4-47. Although the IS/MND concludes that mitigation measures included in the IS/MD will place noise impacts under significant thresholds, substantial evidence exists in the IS/MND and related appendix that demonstrates there still could be significant noise impacts despite the IS/MND's noise mitigation measures. As the court in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency stated, the application of an established regulatory standard cannot be applied in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect. Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114. The court in Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara also held that an EIR is required if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have significant unmitigated noise Page 506 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 31 of31 impacts, even if other evidence shows that the project will not generate noise in excess of a noise ordinance. See Keep Out Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 732. Thus, an EIR to analyze potentially unmitigated noise impacts is required. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should be prepared, and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Victoria Ann Yundt LOZEAU DRURY LLP Page 507 Exhibit A H E E INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING H E E 1448 Pine Street,Suite 103 San Francisco,California 94109 Telephone:(415)567-7700 E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com Date: September 24, 2021 To: Victoria A. Yundt Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4499) Pages: 19 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high- performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain Page 509 and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a),No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015). Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 Kg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 2 of 19 Page 510 particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold(OEHHA, 2017a). With respect to the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces. 3 of 19 Page 511 The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction. Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million). The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) 4 of 19 Page 512 Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day. Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day. This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("EIR"), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARE Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's CEQA review 5 of 19 Page 513 and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded. 1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, 6 of 19 Page 514 adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea- formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard,particleboard). 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSIBIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined 7 of 19 Page 515 from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area- specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. Cin= EtotalQoa (Equation 1) where: C;,,= indoor formaldehyde concentration(µg/m3) Etota1=total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. 8 of 19 Page 516 Qoa=design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health"Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017). 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include: 1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone. NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as 9 of 19 Page 517 mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. Further, we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre- Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. 10 of 19 Page 518 The Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.), and thus the Project site is likely a sound impacted site. According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021) the existing ambient noise levels in Table 4.13-1, range from 52.5 to 70.8 dBA Leg. There were no modeled future noise levels in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021). An acoustic study of the existing and projected future noise levels needs to be conducted to understand the ambient noise levels, Lam,, and prepare the necessary project mitigation. We note that Project's close proximity to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.)make this Project site a significantly sound impacted site. As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM25. According to the Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021) the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 11 of 19 Page 519 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM25 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder"speculate" on what and how 12 of 19 Page 520 much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2_5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. 13 of 19 Page 521 References AECOM. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. 14 of 19 Page 522 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 — Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. Mcllvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf 15 of 19 Page 523 Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX. Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air- quality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4 16 of 19 Page 524 APPENDIX A INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS AND THE CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California". In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality", but rather "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products". Just how much protection do the CARE ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality" when CARE Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Another way of looking at how much protection the CARE ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 17 of 19 Page 525 Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard(MDF)— 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board—30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or Hardwood Plywood—54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or Thin MDF—46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area). For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard(MDF)—3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board—7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood— 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF— 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms) Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, 18 of 19 Page 526 could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF)resins. 19 of 19 Page 527 Exhibit B Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Vincent Acuna, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91 26 September 2021 RE: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Dear Mr.Acuna, I write to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021), specifically on its analysis of potential impacts to biological resources. I understand the project would consist of a 260-unit apartment community composed of two 6o-foot-tall buildings and 3,339 square feet of commercial floorspace on 5.2 acres at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard. The IS/MND is deficient in its characterization of the environmental setting and by not analyzing impacts to special-status species caused by habitat loss, interference with movement in the region,bird-window collisions, wildlife- automobile collisions, and it is deficient in its mitigation plan. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I study wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society—Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation. I was a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology's premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-six years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached. SITE VISIT Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master's Degree from California State University Los Angeles,visited the site of the proposed project on my behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 (Photo 1). She walked the site's perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with the use of binoculars. The sky was clear with no wind, and temperatures ranged 64-72° F. 1 Page 529 Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported. 4942'W— Noriko Smallwood mac.'.�3.,raz•-" �,�^ _- £ - Photos 1. Site of proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 4 September 2021. Ms. Smallwood detected 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during her io8 minutes at the site (Table 1). She saw Cooper's hawk and American kestrel (Photos 2 and 3), California scrub jays and American crows (Photos 4 and 5), Say's phoebe and a great blue heron (Photos 6 and 7), and side-blotched lizard and California ground squirrel (Photos 8 and 9), among other species. Noriko's detections of 24 species of vertebrate wildlife need to be interpreted within the context of her survey effort. No matter who performs the survey, the results of a single survey qualify as a thin empirical foundation for characterizing the environmental setting of any given site, including one proposed for a project. A single survey can serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site's wildlife community. Noriko had only <2 hours available to perform a visual scan survey on 4 September 2021, so there were only so many species she was likely to detect. Noriko could have detected many more species than she did had she also performed surveys at different times of day to detect diurnal, nocturnal and crepuscular species, or surveys in different seasons and years to detect migrants and species with multi-annual cycles of abundance, or surveys of different methods such as se of acoustic detectors or thermal-imaging for bats, owls, and nocturnally migratory birds, and live-trapping for small mammals. Noriko survey outcome indicates that the site of the proposed project continues to serve as valuable habitat to at least 24 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it likely serves as habitat to many more species. It also holds the potential to produce many new birds, mammals and reptiles for years to come. A fair argument can be made for the need to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife, and for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife. 2 Page 530 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed from o6:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site. Species _ Scientific name Status Great blue heron Ardea herodius Gull Laridae Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis Say's phoebe Sayornis saya Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Common raven Corvus corax American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Bushtit Psaltiparus minimus _ House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana • Ping Photos 2 and 3. Cooper's hawk(left)and American kestrel(right) at the site of the All proposed project, 4 September 2021. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 3 Page 531 inn • 1, Photo 4 and 5. California scrub jay (left) and American crow (right) at the project site, 4 September 2021. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. INIM=.141 Photos 6 and 7. Says phoebe (left) and great blue heron (right) at the project site. Photos by Noriko Smallwood, 4 September 2021. 4 Page 532 at Ire f. �► !r r~ �i f , i .r • << ,4 .� .: . Y . g4f4:1;k ii, '' - ' -. \fil' fu ` wpA �'W �: //hM1 �, q ti %*-- -jam s ' • E� . L Photos 8 and 9. Side-blotched - lizard at the project site and a ground squirrel across the street, 4 1 . k : September 2021. Photos by Noriko l;. . i? Smallwood. }} f' • f / JjV- 1 . : _. Ms. Smallwood's detection of California ground squirrels on the open field across the street indicates that ground squirrels likely also occur on the project site. The occurrence of ground squirrels in the project area is significant because many special- status species are found in association with ground squirrels and their burrow complexes. Ground squirrels are prey of large raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk and Swainson's hawk. Ground squirrels are also prey of terrestrial carnivores such as American badger, which specialize on ground squirrels. Ground squirrels also construct subterranean habitat used by many species such as burrowing owl. The occurrence of ground squirrel warrants detection surveys for multiple special- status species that associate with this species. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT The IS/MND refers to a reconnaissance field survey Performed by AECOM (2021) on 24 September 2020. A botanist visited the site for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon (14:0o to 15:30 hours)when wildlife were least likely to be detected. In fact, temperatures were reportedly 96° to 99° F, which was just too hot for a wildlife survey. The IS/MND (page 4-14) reports, "no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey,"but this report follows from a survey of insufficient effort at the most inappropriate time of day. Given the minimal effort at the worst time of day, there should be no surprise that special-status species were undetected. I further note that nothing is reported of AECOM's (2021) wildlife survey; that is,the IS/MND fails to report which, if any, species of wildlife were detected by the botanist who was sent to do the job. This lack of reporting suggests to me that the botanist likely saw no wildlife in the heat of the middle of the afternoon. 5 Page 533 The IS/MND misuses the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). According to the IS/MND, "the CNDDB records of these four species had non-specific locations which were not mapped precisely to the locations where the species were observed and each individual observation is a square mile or greater in size; so it is not known whether the observation was actually made precisely within the biological survey area." In fact, CNDDB records are mapped accurately, but exact locations are often not shared publicly as a means to protect the species. CNDDB records are intended to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of a special-status species in the project area,but not the species' exact locations. Nor is CNDDB intended to support determinations of species' absence, as the IS/MND implies. CNDDB is intended to flag the occurrences of species in the area, not to provide an exact accounting of where the species is located at the moment. The IS/MND further misrepresents CNDDB by implying that older records are dismissible. According to the IS/MND, "...CNDDB records that overlap with the biological survey area are 19 years old or more and since that time, the area has been developed substantially.As a result, it is possible many locations no longer exist. Current site conditions do not provide suitable habitat for these species and none are known to occur or expected to occur within the Project site or vicinity." CNDDB does not imply that species are static, or that locations where they were mapped previously are the only locations where the species would be found later. Wildlife populations are spatially dynamic, shifting centers of activity every generation or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979), so it would be inappropriate of CNDDB to assert that locations of past occupancy should still be locations of current occupancy. For this reason, users of CNDDB typically determine whether CNDDB records exist within a 5-mile radius of a proposed project. Occurrences within 5 miles serve as indicators that the species could also occur at the project site, and if so, then protocol-level detection surveys should be performed. The IS/MND asserts, "the BSA generally does not provide suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species."This assertion,however, lacks evidence in the form of detection survey results. Detection surveys are designed by species' experts to —at reasonable cost —provide the best chance for detecting the targeted species by applying the methods and survey effort most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present. The objectives of detection surveys are to (1) support negative findings of species when appropriate, (2) inform preconstruction surveys to improve their efficacy, (3) estimate project impacts, and(4) inform compensatory mitigation and other forms of mitigation. The botanist who surveyed the project site for 90 minutes in the middle of the hot afternoon did not come anywhere close to having performed a detection survey for any species of wildlife. Neither AECOM nor City of Rancho Cucamonga was justified by asserting that the site lacks special-status species of wildlife. Detection surveys for multiple special-status species of wildlife should be implemented to inform an EIR. Without such surveys, the IS/MND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. The IS/MND repeatedly speculates that for this or that species, anthropogenic disturbances prevent their occurrences. The IS/MND exemplifies one such disturbance as routine mowing of the site. The IS/MND 6 Page 534 offers no evidence in defense of its premise that routine mowing precludes special- status species of wildlife. It fails to identify the Crotch bumble bee host plants that allegedly occur in low density, and it fails to make the case that the host plants in question are the only plants useable by Crotch bumble bee. The IS/MND relies on generalities rather than specifics, and on speculation rather than evidence. It suggests that house cats killed off the special-status species, and that traffic noise drove them away, and that insect prey are in low supply. None of these suggestions are backed by evidence, and no effort has been made to actually look for special-status species on the site. An example follows. In the case of the Crotch bumble bee, the IS/MND reports, "No bumble bee species were observed during the field survey." (There is only one species of Crotch bumble bee.) This reporting ignores the fact that Crotch bumble bees are unlikely to be out and about in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures range 96°to 99° F, as was reportedly the conditions during the one survey performed— a survey performed not by a wildlife ecologist or an entomologist,but by a botanist. The report of having not detected Crotch bumble bee was a meaningless report, and serves only to misrepresent how wildlife ecologists determine whether a species is present or likely absent from a site. My review of eBird and iNaturalist identified 6o special-status species of vertebrate wildlife and the Crotch's bumble bee as having been seen very close to the project site, seen nearby, seen within the region, or whose geographic range overlaps the project site (Table 2). I consider all of these species in Table 2 as potentially occurring on the project site at one time or another or periodically. AECOM (2o2i) determines occurrence likelihood to be low for western yellow bat and Crotch bumble bee, but its determinations for all other species is unreported. AECOM (2o2i) refers the reader to Appendix D for determinations of all species considered,but Appendix D is empty on the copy of AECOM's report I downloaded from City of Rancho Cucamonga's web site. Habitat Loss The IS/MND identifies only mourning dove as a bird species likely to nest on the ground. It lists only house finch, northern mockingbird and California scrub-jay as species likely to nest trees in the area. In reality, many more species of birds are capable of nesting on and around the project site. Many bird species are ground-nesters. The IS/MND does not analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity. A recent study documented a 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years — a decline driven by multiple factors,but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife,but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. For example, a grassland/wetland/woodland complex at one study site had a total bird nesting density of 32.8 nests per acre (Young 1948). In another study on a similar complex of vegetation cover, the average annual nest density was 35.8 nests per acre (Yahner 1982). These densities averaged 34.3 nests per acre, indicative of a very large productive capacity of North American birds,but also indicative of a very large source of lost capacity should habitat be taken for human uses. 7 Page 535 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of vertebrate wildlife as determined by the IS/MND and by publicly available data bases such as eBird(https://eBird.org)and iNaturalist, where 'very close'indicates within a mile, `nearby'indicates within a few miles, and 'in region'indicates within to to 3o miles of the project site. Occurrence likelihood Common name Species name Status1 IS/MND Data bases Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby California gull Larus californicus WL Very close Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Nearby Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP Nearby White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP Nearby Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP Nearby American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE, CFP, BOP Nearby Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby Burrowing owl Bubo virginianus BCC, SSC2, BOP Nearby Great-horned owl Athene cunicularia SSC2, BOP Nearby Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii BOP In region Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby Lewis's woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region Nuttall's woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby 2 Costa's hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby cn Allen's hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close 0) Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby 8 Occurrence likelihood Common name Species name Status' IS/MND Data bases Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus BCC In region Horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Nearby California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC In region Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii CE, BCC Nearby Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 Nearby Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Very close Least Bell's vireo Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Nearby Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Nearby Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC,WL In region Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSCi In region Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 In region Lawrence's goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby Blainville's horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Nearby Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC,WBWG H In range Townsend's western big-eared bat Plecotus t. townsendii SSC, WBWG H In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG H Low In range Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG M In range -0 Miller's myotis Myotis evotis WBWG M In region 2 Fringed myotis ' Myotis thysanodes WBWG H In region wLong-legged myotis Myotis Volans WBWG H In range Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SSC,WBWG LM In region 9 Occurrence likelihood Common name Species name Status' IS/MND Data bases Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG LM In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii CE Low Nearby 1 Listed as FT and FE = federal threatened and endangered, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT and CE = California threatened and endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFW Code 3511), BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSCi, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively(Shuford and Gardali 2008),WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group listing as moderate or high priority. v CO CD 01 w CO 10 Assuming nesting density at the project site is a fifth of the average reported by Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), then 6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied against the project's 5.2 acres would predict that 35 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young's (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young's (1948) study site typifies bird productivity,the project would prevent the production of 102 fledglings per year. After 10o years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years,the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 11,60o birds {(nests/year x chicks/nest x number of years) + (2 adults/nest x nests/year) x (number of years = years/generation)}. The project's denial to California of 11,600 birds over the first century following construction would easily qualify as a significant and substantial impact. This impact has not been addressed by City of Cucamonga. If the City believes my assumed nesting density is inaccurate,then I suggest inserting another density value that is better founded,but I also predict that the productive capacity estimate would be little different from my own. The impact of habitat loss would be significant. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project's impacts from habitat loss. Habitat fragmentation, which is the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can further diminish the productive capacity of a site (Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the project site, leaving a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area, each of which is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation is one of the cumulative effects of this project that needs to be analyzed in an EIR. Wildlife Movement The IS/MND dismisses potential impacts to wildlife movement by concluding that development around the project site precludes its use as part of a wildlife movement corridor. The premise of this conclusion must be that the presence of a wildlife corridor determines whether a project would significantly interfere with wildlife movement in the region. However, this premise represents a false CEQA standard. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes one of the last of a diminishing suite of open space patches within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging opportunities, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes. The project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. An EIR needs to be prepared to address the project's impacts on wildlife movement in the region. 11 Page 539 BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY At 6o feet tall,the project's buildings would extend into much of the bird traffic Ms. Smallwood observed at the project site. The IS/MND's rendering of the project shows facades composed of extensive structural glass, which has been the recent trend.l The project would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem's (1990) and Dunn's (1993) estimates of about 10o million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.'s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.'s (2013) and Machtans et al.'s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. However, these estimates were likely biased too low,because they were based on opportunistic sampling,volunteer study participation, fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers, and usually no adjustments made for scavenger removals of carcasses before searchers could detect them (Bracey et al. 2016). Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway. Noriko Smallwood's observations during her visit to the site confirmed that birds fly through the airspace of the project, even during the nonmigratory season. At least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2). According to the scientific literature, most of the special-status species in Table 2 have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Many more species of migratory birds, newly protected by California's revised Fish and Game Code section 3513, have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020). Nowhere in the IS/MND is there any concern expressed for bird-window collision impacts, nor is there any mitigation proposed to avoid, minimize or compensate for such impacts. As I will show in the next section, many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the proposed project. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address this potential impact. 'Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of glass windows on building façades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a worldwide 20%increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016. Glass markets in the USA experienced 5% growth in both 2011 and 2016, and was forecast to grow 2.3%per year since 2016 (TMCapital 2019). Increasing window to wall ratios and glass façades have become popular for multiple reasons,including a growing demand for`daylighting.' 12 Page 540 Project Impact Prediction Predicting the impacts caused by loss of aerial habitat and the energetic costs of birds having to navigate around the buildings is possible,but I am unprepared to make such predictions. However, I am prepared to predict bird-window collision mortality. By the time of these comments I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O'Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Penuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, , City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year(95% CI: 0.042-0.102). Based on a renderin of a building in the IS/MND, I estimated the proposed project would include at least 3,196 m2 of glass on its facades. This extent of glass applied to the mean fatality rate would predict at least 234 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 139-329). The 1oo-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be at least 23,363 bird deaths (95% CI: 13,871-32,855). These estimates would be perhaps 3 times higher after accounting for the proportions of fatalities removed by scavengers or missed by fatality searchers where studies have been performed. Collision fatalities would continue until the buildings are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down. If the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 234 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts. Bird-Window Collision Factors Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature, and which I suggest ought to be used to draft Bird-Safe Guidelines for City of Rancho Cucamonga and which ought to be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed project. Following this list are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience. (1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other flights (2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor plants (3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace (4) Black hole or passage effect (5) Window or façade extent, or proportion of façade consisting of window or other reflective surface (6) Size of window (7) Type of glass (8) Lighting,which is correlated with window extent and building operations (9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground) (10) Orientation of façade with respect to winds and solar exposure (11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment 13 Page 541 (12) Context in terms of urban-rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious surface vs vegetation (13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building (14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants (15) Relative abundance (16) Season of the year (17) Ecology, demography and behavior (18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack (19) Aggressive social interactions (1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace.—Not all of a structure's collision risk can be attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and Klem et al. (2009) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows, although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although mortality would increase with larger expanses of glass. (2)Window transparency.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior vegetation. (3) Window reflectance.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace, vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem et al. (2009) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation associated positively with collisions. (4) Black hole or passage effect.—Although this factor was not often mentioned in the bird-window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites. The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of both of these factors. It might play a significant role in the proposed project,which includes extruded window frames of many windows. (5) Window or facade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al. (2013), Ocampo-Penuela et al. (2016), Loss et al. (2019), Rebolo-Ifran et al. (2019), and Riding et al. (2020) reported increased collision fatalities at buildings with larger 14 Page 542 reflective façades or higher proportions of façades composed of windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and proportion of facade that was glazed. (6) Size of window.—According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on large-pane windows compared to small-pane windows. (7)Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise,little attention has been directed towards the types of glass in buildings. (8) Lighting.—Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated positively with percent glass on the façade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an 8o% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights-out Program. However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building. (9) Height of structure.—Except for Riding et al. (2020), I found little if any hypothesis- testing related to building height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller buildings? Some of the most notorious buildings are low-rise buildings. (io) Orientation of façade.—Some studies tested façade orientation,but not convincingly. Some evidence that orientation affects collision rates was provided by Winton et al. (2018). Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some portion of it could be attributed to orientation of façade. Whether certain orientations cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic-appearing reflections ought to be testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under façades of different orientations would help. (11) Structural layout.—Bird-safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of structural layouts associated with high rates of bird-window collisions, but little attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision rates at 3 stories of glassed-in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington State University. (12) Context in urban-rural gradient.—Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016). (13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building.—Correlations have sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation near windows (Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016, Ocampo- 15 Page 543 Pamela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass facade, then birds coming from that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the facade to result in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 3o to 50 m away, and birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at the windows. (14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P < 0.001)between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold. (15) Relative abundance.—Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings. (16) Season of the year.—Borden et al. (2010) found 90% of collision fatalities during spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words, the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying seasonally-explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions into the glass facades of the project's building would likely be concentrated in fall and spring migration periods. (17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds were not found as common window-caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al. (2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible to collision than resident birds. (18) Predatory attacks.—Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of window strike reports in Dunn's (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper's hawks chasing birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide with the project's windows would include Peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk. (19)Aggressive social interactions.—I found no hypothesis-testing of the roles of aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have 16 Page 544 witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the birds hitting a window. For most of the known or suspected collision risk factors,the proposed project's design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk. Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight. Window Collision Solutions Given the magnitude of bird-window collision impacts, there are obviously great opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts. However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post-construction fatality monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project. Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the literature. Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more facades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction,because post-construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective. (i)Retrofitting to reduce impacts (1A) Marking windows (1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation (iC) Managing indoor landscape vegetation (iD) Managing nocturnal lighting (1A) Marking windows.—Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peiiuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings — the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film.At the building with fritted glass,bird collisions were 82%lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed facades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland 17 Page 545 Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94%by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland's Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rossler et al. 2015). Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my windows during the 10 years hence. In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations. (2)Siting and Designing to minimize impacts (2A) Deciding on location of structure (2B) Deciding on facade and orientation (2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows (2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel facades (2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants (2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs (3)Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts (3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns (3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed. TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE According to the IS/MND (page 45), the project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled. This VMT prediction provides a basis for predicting one of the most important potential project impacts to wildlife. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal,bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 10o km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 10o km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local or regional impacts can be more intense than at the national level. In a recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, investigators found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals,birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Using carcass detection trials performed on land immediately adjacent to the traffic mortality study(Brown et al. 2016)to adjust the found fatalities for the proportion of fatalities not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error, the estimated traffic-caused fatalities was 12,187. This fatality estimate translates to a rate 18 Page 546 of 3,90o wild animals per mile per year killed. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,74o animals killed per loo km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.'s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife. Increased use of existing roads would increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2oo1). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts would far exceed the impacts of land conversion to use for a warehouse. Wildlife roadkill is not randomly distributed, and so it can be predicted. Causal factors include types of roadway,human population density, and temperature (Chen and Wu 2014), as well as time of day and adjacency and extent of vegetation cover (Chen and Wu 2014, Bartonicka et al. 2018), and intersections with streams and riparian vegetation (Bartonicka et al. 2018). For example, species of mammalian Carnivora are killed by vehicle traffic within o.i miles of stream crossings >4o times other than expected (K. S. Smallwood, 1989-2018 unpublished data). Reptiles are killed on roads where roadside fences end or where fences are damaged (Markle et al. 2o17). There has even been a function developed to predict the number of golden eagles killed along the road, where the function includes traffic volume and density of road-killed animals available for eagles to scavenge upon (Lonsdorf et al. 2018). These factors also point the way toward mitigation measures, which should be formulated in an EIR. Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The IS/MND predicts the project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled. This prediction translates to 5,979,43o annual vehicle miles traveled. This is a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating (Photos io and ii). Despite the obvious risk to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the IS/MND does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Photo 10. A Gambel's quail dashes across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. 19 Page 547 Photo 1i- A mourning dove killed by vehicle traffic on a California road. Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 • June 2020. f. • • For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,90o animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice,but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks,American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red- legged frogs,but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards,but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of wildlife fatalities was 19,50o cars and trucks x 2.5 miles x 365 days/year x 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. Based on the daily VMT predicted by the IS/MND, the project would generate 5,979,430 vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality,would predict 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 5o years would accumulate 163,82o wildlife fatalities. It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts. The Project's toll on wildlife could be even higher than I predict. The IS/MND does not address this impact in the least. Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze this impact. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. 20 Page 548 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The IS/MND implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. It states, "As previously discussed, impacts related to the proposed Project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed Project's contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable." If the IS/MND accurately represented CEQA's standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. And if that was the standard, then I must point out that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds. But the IS/MND's implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis. The IS/MND has misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR needs to be prepared, and it needs to include an appropriate, serious analysis of cumulative impacts. When it comes to wildlife, cumulative effects can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity(Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale. In the case of migrating birds,the project's cumulative effects could be measured as numerical reductions of breeding birds at far-off breeding sites as migrating adults and next-year's recruits lose access to stop-over habitat. In the cases of wildlife species that are susceptible to traffic collisions,the project's contribution to ongoing and foreseeable traffic-caused mortality can be measured or predicted. Even crude predictions of cumulative impacts are imperative. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address the project's potential contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife in the region. MITIGATION BIO-i: Preconstruction survey for breeding birds The IS/MND proposes preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats. Preconstruction surveys should be performed, but not as substitute for detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts,let alone to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; they are not even designed to assess impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special- status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys. Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them. Detection surveys were designed by species 21 Page 549 experts, often undergoing considerable deliberation and review before adoption. Detection surveys often require repeated efforts using methods known to maximize likelihoods of detection. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures,because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either. What is missing from the IS/MND, and what is in greater need than preconstruction surveys, are detection surveys consistent with guidelines and protocols that wildlife ecologists have uniquely developed for use with each special-status species. What is also missing is compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts. Following detection surveys, preconstruction surveys should be performed. However, an EIR should be prepared, and it should detail how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Without reporting the results, preconstruction surveys are vulnerable to serving as an empty gesture rather than a mitigation measure. For these reasons, this mitigation measure is insufficient to reduce the project's impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. RECOMMENDED MEASURES Detection Surveys Detection surveys are needed for each of the special-status species in Table 2. Detection surveys are needed for nesting birds and for bats. For bats, I recommend deployment of acoustic detectors and use of thermal-imaging. For birds, I recommend a rigorous nest survey in the absence of an impending construction schedule, including the mapping of nest sites of each species. Because ground squirrels occur in the project area,breeding- season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented (CDFW 2oi2), but they should be implemented prior to the circulation of an EIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts. Habitat Loss and Wildlife Movement The IS/MND provides no mitigation for adverse impacts from habitat loss or to regional movement of wildlife. At a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the project's impacts from habitat loss and interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. The proposed project site composes one of the last patches of open space available to birds and bats on long-distance dispersal or migration flights. Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions If the project goes forward, it should adhere to the available guidelines prepared by American Bird Conservancy and the Cities of New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy(ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines that recommend actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns,window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off 22 Page 550 lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society(Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department's (2011)building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess efficacy and to quantify post- construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. Road Mortality Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that will be caused by the project's contribution to increased road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below). Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the injuries will likely be caused by the increased trip generation of cars and trucks. Many animals need treatment caused by collision injuries and an increasing number appear to be injured by the turbulence of passing trucks. Thank you for your attention, Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. REFERENCES CITED AECOM. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project,Appendix B: Biological Resources Assessment. Report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. 23 Page 551 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/1o.1371/journal.pone.o178667 Bartonicka, T., R.Andrasik, M. Dula, J. Sedonik, and M. Bil. 2018. Identification of local factors causing clustering of animal-vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management. Journal of Wildlife Management DOI: 10.1oo2/jwmg.21467 Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias 92(i): e2o18o745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745• Bishop, C.A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/1o.5751/ACE-00604-080202. Borden,W. C., O. M. Lockhart,A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52• Bracey,A. M., M.A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367. Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/1o.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. CDFW(California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. Calvert,A. M., C.A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E.A. Krebs,T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/1o.5751/ACE-oo581-080211 Chen, X. and S. Wu. 2014. Examining patterns of animal—vehicle collisions in Alabama, USA. Human-Wildlife Interactions 8:235-244. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon. 24 Page 552 City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. Prepared by AECOM for CRP/WP Alta Cuvee Venture, LLC. Rancho Cucamonga, California. Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species: urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1-20. DOI 10.1007/s11252-015-0459-3. Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bisonette,A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. Gelb,Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470. Gomez-Moreno,V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Nino-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitologia 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/1o.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347 Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2:e46o DOI 10.7717/peerJ.46o. Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 12o:550-564. Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:203-211. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371• doi:1o.1371/journal.pone.o053371 Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e1446o0 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. 25 Page 553 Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 12i:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report. Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406-411. Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz,Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009.Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134. Kobylarz, B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10-15. Kummer J.A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window collisions at residential houses.Avian Conservation and Ecology lo(2):6 DOI 10.5751/ACE-00787-100206. Kummer, J.A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to identify factors affecting bird-window collision risk at houses. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-16-26.1 Lonsdorf, E. C.A. Sanders-Reed, C. Boal, and T. D.Allison. 2018. Modeling golden eagle-vehicle collisions to design mitigation strategies. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1633-i644. Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771. Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird—building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.165o/CONDOR-13-o90.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles,A. W.Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North 26 Page 554 American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): eo224164. https://doi.org/io.1371/journal. pone.o224164 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows.Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/1o.5751/ACE-oo568-080206 Markle, C. E., S. D. Gillingwater, R. Levick, P. Chow-Fraser. 2017. The true cost of partial fencing: evaluating strategies to reduce reptile road mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:342-350. Mendelsohn, M.,W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California. Ocampo-Penuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI1o.7717/peerj.1652 O'Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149. Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679. Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird—building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94. Porter,A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Rebolo-Ifran, N.,A. di Virgilio, and S.A. Lambertucci. 2019. Drivers of bird-window collisions in southern South America: a two-scale assessment applying citizen science. Scientific Reports 9:18148 I https://doi.org/1o.1o38/s41598-019-54351-3 Riding, C. S., T. J. O'Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird—window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1-14. Rossler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535-541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 27 Page 555 Rosenberg, K.V.,A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher,J. R. Sauer,A. C. Smith, P.A. Smith,J. C. Stanton,A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019). Runge, C.A.,T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R.A. Fuller. 2014. Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395-402, doi:10.1890/130237. Sabo,A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer,A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e217o; DOI 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018. Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/1o.7717/ peerJ.4562 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, end Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains,Virginia. Shuford,W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H.A. Mathewson, Eds.,Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1-19. Taylor, R.A. J., and L. R. Taylor. 1979. A behavioral model for the evolution of spatial dynamics. Pp. 1-28 in R. M.Anderson, B. D. Turner, and L. R. Taylor (editors). Population dynamics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. Taylor, P. D., S.A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber,A. M. Calvert,A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054• doi:1o.1371/j ournal.pone.0027054 28 Page 556 TMCapital. 2019. 2019 Building products report: enduring growth beyond short-term challenges. https://www.tmcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2o19/08/ BuildingProd AnnualReport 2019-o8-14.pdf Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626. Winton, R. S., N. Ocampo-Penuela, and N. Cagle. 2018. Geo-referencing bird-window collisions for targeted mitigation. PeerJ 6:e4215; DOI 10.7717/peerj.4215 Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175. Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47. Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird-building collisions: a status update on "Project Birdsafe." The Loon 82:34-37. 29 Page 557 Exhibit C SWAP E Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street,Suite 201 Santa Monica,CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G,C.Hg. (949)887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310)795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com September 30, 2021 Richard Drury Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Comments on the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Dear Mr. Drury, We have reviewed the August 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND")for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project ("Project") located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City").The Project proposes to construct a 260-unit apartment building, 3,339-SF of commercial space, 5,500-SF of amenity space, as well as a total of 465 parking spaces, on the 5.2-acre site. Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment. Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 4-8).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data,total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known,the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model,the Project's 1 CAPCOA(November 2017)CalEEMod User's Guide, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Page 559 construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated.These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected. When reviewing the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Impacts Assessment ("AQAssessment") and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Assessment("GHG Assessment") as Appendix A and Appendix F to the IS/MND, respectively,we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result,the Project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" and "Alta Cuvee Bus Bay" models include a reduction to the default CO2 intensity factor(see excerpts below) (Appendix A, pp. 30, 91; Appendix F, pp. 28, 87). "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblPrajectCharacteristics CC2lntensi yFactor 762.44 531.98 .5 4- 4 "Alta Cuvee Bus Bay" Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value tblPrajectCharacteristics Cd2lntensittIFactor r 762.44 471.24 i As you can see in the excerpts above,the CO2 intensity factor was decreased from the default value of 702.44-to 531.98-and 471.24-pounds per megawatt hour("lbs/MWhr"), respectively, in the models.As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justifications for this change are (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 26, 91;Appendix F, pp. 23, 86): • "Electricity supplied by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility,which is not available as input selection. SCE used as surrogate" • "SB 100 mandates 44% renewable by end of 2024. SCE CO2 factor assumes 40% renewables when operations begin. SCE 2019 power mix= 36% renewables" However, these justifications remain insufficient. Review of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Content Label demonstrates that the City's CO2 intensity factor is 630 lbs/MWh (see excerpt below)3: 2 CalEEMod User Guide,available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p.2,9 3 2020 POWER CONTENT LABEL, Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility,available at: https://cityofrc.prod.acquia- sites.com/sites/default/files/2021-08/ENG-RCM U%20PCL%202020.pdf. 2 Page 560 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity(lbs CO2e/MWh) City or Rancho 2020 CA Utility Average Cucamonga 630 466 1000 Spy I City of Rancho 600 Cucamonga 400 ■2020 CA ZQO Utility Average 0 As such,the CO2 intensity factor is underestimated by approximately 98-and 159-lbs/MWhr, respectively. These inconsistencies present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the CO2 intensity factor to calculate the Project's GHG emissions associated with electricity use.4 Thus, by including an underestimated CO2 intensity factor,the models underestimate the Project's potential GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Model All Required Parking Regarding the amount of required and proposed parking on the Project site, the IS/MND provides the following table (see excerpt below) (p. 1-15,Table 1-2): Table 1-2, Required and Proposed Parking Floorplan Units Required Total Parking Total Parking Requested Parking Per Required Proposed Parking Unit Exception A (1 Bedroom) 184 1.5 276 B (2 Bedroom) 55 2 110 C (3 Bedroom) 20 2 40 414 13 (3%) LivelWork (1 1 1.5 1 Bedroom) Commercial 3;339 SF 1 space/250 4 4 9 (69%) SF Guests 260 0.33 86 47 39 (45%) Total 260 - 526 465 61112° Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Table 17.64.050-1 for multi-family development Note:The parking code requires more than half of the parking for multifamily development to be garaged: the proposed Project does not provide dedicated garages for reach unit. 4"CalEEMod User's Guide."CAPCOA, November 2017,available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 17. 3 Page 561 Additionally, regarding the requested parking exception,the IS/MND states: "The 12 percent parking reduction would require a minor exception approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga.The parking exception must be compatible with the surrounding area and adjoining uses. In compliance with the City Code, a parking management plan (Appendix I) has been completed to demonstrate how the proposed land uses would utilize the parking spaces, assign parking spaces to apartment units, and support the 12 percent parking reduction." As demonstrated above,the Project is pending approval from the City to reduce the amount of parking by 12%,from 526 to 465 spaces. As this request is yet to be approved, the model should have included the entire amount of required parking in order to conduct the most conservative analysis. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use" model includes only 465 parking spaces' (Appendix A, pp. 25; Appendix F, pp. 23). Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area I Population General Office Building 7.60 1000sgfl 1 0.00 4,960.00 I 0 I Parking Lot Enclosed Parking with Elevator 265.00 I Space Space 0.00 106,606.00 0 F IL i r 20600 180 86006.06 i 0 1 I City Park • 033 Acre i 0 33 14 374.86 I 0 F Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 1000sgfl i 0.07 3,060.00 j 0 - r Apartments Mid Rise 256 00 i I- I Dwelling Unit 3 00 228,60D 00 I 785 Condofiownhouse • 1.00 Dwelling Unit F 000 1,579 00 3 Step Mall • 3.34 1000sgfl 0.00 379.00 0 As you can see in the excerpt above, the total amount of required parking is underestimated by 61 spaces.This is incorrect, as we are unable to verify if the City will approve or deny the Project's requested parking exception. This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the square footage of parking for certain calculations such as determining the area to be painted and stripped (i.e.,VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume to be ventilated (i.e., energy impacts).6 Thus, by failing to include the total amount of required parking spaces, the model underestimates the Project's construction-related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Use Size According to the IS/MND,the Project proposes to construct"259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet" (p. 1-13). Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the correct number of residential units (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 25;Appendix F, pp. 23). 5 265"Enclosed Parking with Elevator"spaces+200"Parking Lot"spaces=465 6"CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2. 4 Page 562 Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area I Population General Office Building 7.60 1090sgfl i 9 00 490900 1 0 I Enclosed Parking with Elevator 265 00 Space F 0 00 106,D0D 00 T 0 F Parking Lot 200.00 Space 1.80 80,000.OD i 0 - s ; F 4. City Park 0.33 Acre i 0.33 14,374.8D i 0 I- Recreational Swimming Pool • 3.00 1000sgfl 0 07 3,0D000 i 0 1 1 Apartments Mid Rise 259 00 Dwelling Unit 3 00 228,00D 00 I 786 I Condo/Townhouse 10D • Dwelling Unit 000 1,570.00 i 3 Strip- }Mall 3.34 t.-------1000sgfl 0.00-- -- 3,339.00 D However,further review demonstrates that the square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area was reduced from the default value of 259,000-to 228,000-SF (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 29; Appendix F, pp. 27). ITable Name Column Name I Default Value New Value r ibiLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 259,000.OD 228,DODAO I As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.'According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for this change is: "Site Plan; Project population" (Appendix A, pp. 25; Appendix F, pp. 23). Furthermore, as previously stated, the IS/MND indicates that the apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF (p. 1-13).Thus, the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185-SF8 to 354,053-SF.9 Regardless, as the IS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use, the reduction to the default floor surface area is unsubstantiated. This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model's calculations.The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts).10 Thus, by including an unsubstantiated reduction to the residential floor surface area, the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 27; Appendix F, pp. 25). 7 CalEEMod User Guide,available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p.2,9 8 Calculated: 715-SF * 259 units= 185,185-SF total. 9 Calculated: 1,367-SF * 259 units=354,053-SF total. 19 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 28. 5 Page 563 Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nenresidential_Exterior • 100.00 5000 4 + — tblArchitecturalCoating FE Nonresidential Exterior • 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating • EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 4 + — tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nanresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblAreaCoating • Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 100 50 tblAreaCoating •• Area_EF_Nanresidential_Interior • 100 50 As you can see in the excerpt above,the nonresidential exterior and interior architectural and area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default value of 100-to 50-grams per liter("g/L"). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.11 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table, the justification provided for these changes is: "SCAQMD Building Envelope-50 g/L" (Appendix A, 26; Appendix F, pp. 24). However,these changes remain unsupported for two reasons. First,the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the building envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113, whatsoever. Second,the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only building envelope coatings during Project construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate. These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project's reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound ("ROG"/"VOC") emissions.12 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default gas fireplace values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 28; Appendix F, pp. 26). 11 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 1z CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01 user-39-s- guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p.35,40. 6 Page 564 lI Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 25.00 0.0D tblFireplaces I FireplaceDayYear 25.00 0.0D tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3_00 D.OD + 4- _ tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3_D0 D.OD tblFireplaces 1 FireplaceWoodMass 1,019 20 1 DOD 1.tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 I 0.0D tblFireplaces t NumberGas 220.15 D.0D tblFireplaces NumberGas 0.65 D.OD f tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.90 11 0.00 tblFireplaces I NumberNoFireplace D.10 I 0.0D tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.95 I 0.0D tblFireplaces T NumberWood D.05 + DM As you can see in the excerpt above, the model assumes that the Project would not include any gas fireplaces. As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.13 However,the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table fails to provide a justification (Appendix A, pp. 25-27; Appendix F, pp. 23-25). Furthermore,the IS/MND indicates that the east building would include a courtyard with an outdoor fireplace (p. 1-13).As such,the IS/MND states at least one fireplace would be installed on the Project site. However,the IS/MND fails to mention or justify the assumption that no gas fireplaces would be included in the residential building.As such, we cannot verify the revised number of gas fireplaces. This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the number of gas fireplaces to calculate the Project's area-source operational emissions.14 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the number gas fireplaces,the model may underestimate the Project's area-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default solid waste generation rates (see excerpts below) (Attachment A, pp. 30; Appendix F, pp. 28). Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value I tblSolidWaste4 SalidWasteGeneratianRate 119.14 119.60 J tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate + 7.D7 DOD - tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 17.10 D 00 As you can see in the excerpt above, the total solid waste generation rate was cumulatively decreased by 23.71 tons per year ("tons/year").15 As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires 'CalEEMod User's Guide,available at::http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01 user-39-s- guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2,9. 14 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p.40. 15 Calculated: (119.14 tons/year+7.07 tons/year+17.10 tons/year)-(119.60 tons/year) =23.71 tons/year. 7 Page 565 any changes to model defaults be justified.16 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non- Default Data" table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Remove duplicate waste generation" (Appendix A, 26;Appendix F, pp. 24). Furthermore, regarding the Project's anticipated solid waste generation rate, the IS/MND states: "It is anticipated that the proposed Project would accommodate approximately 788 future residents, and operational activities would generate approximately 1.6 tons per day of solid waste during Project operation" (p.4-73). As demonstrated above,the Project anticipates generating 1.6 tons of solid waste per day, or roughly 584 tons/year.17 However,the model includes a total of only 123.6 tons/yearl8(see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 85; Appendix F, pp. 82). Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MTlyr Apartments Mid 119.6 24.2777 1.4348 0.0000 60.1470 Rise City Park 0.03 6.0900e- 3.6000e 0.0000 T 3.3151 003 ; 004 Condo/Townhous 0.46 0.0934T5.5200e / 0.0000 T 0.2313 e 003 r r i Enclosed Parking 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator General Office 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Building r r Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r r .U0 Recreational 0 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 000 r 0.0000 Swimming Pool Strip Mall 3.51 0.7125 0.0421 0.0000 / 1.7652 25.0897 1.4828 0.0000 621586 As such,the solid waste included in the model is underestimated by 460.4 tons/year.19 Thus,the model is inconsistent with the information provided in the IS/MND. This underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the solid waste generation rates to calculate the Project's operation GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste into landfills.20 Thus, by including underestimated solid waste generation rates,the model underestimates the Project's operational GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. 16 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 17(1.6 tons/day)x 365 days=584 tons/year. 18(119.6 tons/year for"Apartments Mid Rise")+(0.03 tons/year for"City Park")+(0.46 tons/year for "Condo/Townhouse")+(3.51 tons/year"Strip Mall")= 123.6 tons/year of total solid waste. 19(584 tons/year proposed by the IS/MND)-(123.6 tons/year included in the model) 20 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p.46. 8 Page 566 Underestimated Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use" model includes several changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpts below) (Appendix A, pp. 28-29;Appendix F, pp. 26-27). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value I tblFleetM ix H HD 0.07 0 00 + - tblFleetMix HHD • 0_07 0 00 4 4- - tblFleetM ix LDA • 0_56 0.60 tblFleetM ix 4. LDA 0_56 0.60 + - tblFleetM ix LDT1 • 0.04 0.06 tblFleetM ix LDT1 • 0.04 0.06 tblFleetM ix LDT2 0.10 0.19 4 + - tblFleetM ix LDT2 • 0.10 0.19 tblFleetM ix 1 LHD1 • 0_01 0.02 • + - tblFleetMix 4. LHD1 0_01 0.02 tblFleetM ix LHD2 • 4.7940e-003 5 0000e-003 . tblFleetM ix LHD2 4.7940e-003 5.0000e-003 i 4 tbIFIeetMix MCY • 5.7250e-003 0.01 I - - tb I FI eetM ix MCY • 5.7250e-003 0.01 tbIFIeetMix MDV • 0.11 0.12 + - tblFleetMix MDV • 0.11 0.12 tbIFIeetMix I MIA • 3.3000e-004 0.00 tbIFIeetMix 4. M H 8.3000e-004 0.00 4 -e- - tbIFIeetMix MHD • 0.02 0.00 tbIFIeetMix MHD • 0_02 0 00 • + - 1bIFIeetMix ()BUS • 1.3650e-003 0.00 4 4H - tblFleetMix OBUS • 1.3650e-003 0.00 tbIFIeetMix 4. SBUS 7.9900e-004 0 00 + - tb l Fl eetM ix SBUS • 7.9900e-004 0.00 tbIFIeetMix UBUS • 1.4910e-003 0.00 ibIFIeetMix UBUS 1 4910e-003 0.00 s As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.21 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Residential Trips" (Appendix A, pp. 27;Appendix F, pp. 25). However, these changes remain unsupported, as the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the operational vehicle fleet mix or justify the revised percentages whatsoever. According to the CalEEMod User's Guide: 21 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 9 Page 567 "CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project- specific information,when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA" (emphasis added).22 Here, as the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, we cannot verify the changes. These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as operational vehicle fleet mix percentages are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project's operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles.23 Thus, by including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix,the model may underestimate the Project's mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 30;Appendix F, pp. 28). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblaffRaadEquipment HDrsePower 78_OD — 15.00 i f tblOffRoadEquipment Horsepower • 78.0D 15.00 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.24 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Project Inventory" (Appendix A, pp. 26;Appendix F, pp. 24). However, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention or justify the revised horsepower values whatsoever. According to the CalEEMod User's Guide: "CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project- specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA" (emphasis added).25 Here, as the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised horsepower values, we cannot verify the changes. These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses horsepower values to calculate emissions associated with off-road construction equipment.26 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values,the model may underestimate the 22 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User's Guide,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12. 23 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 24 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 25 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User's Guide,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12. 26 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 32. 10 Page 568 Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the following construction-related mitigation measure (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 38; Appendix F, pp. 36): 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.27 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table, the justification provided for this inclusion is: "SCAQMD Rule 403" (Appendix A, pp. 24; Appendix F, pp. 22). However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned construction-related mitigation measure remains unsupported for two reasons. First,the inclusion of the construction-related mitigation measures, based on the Project's compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, is unsupported.According to the Association of Environmental Professionals ("AEP") CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures: "By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts."28 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design and are intended to go above-and-beyond existing regulatory requirements. As such, the inclusion of these measures, based solely on SCAQMD Rule 403, is unsubstantiated. Second, according to the above-mentioned AEP report: "While not'mitigation', a good practice is to include those project design feature(s)that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project 27 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 28"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p.5. 11 Page 569 that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact."29 As you can see in the excerpts above, project design features ("PDFs")that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether.Thus, as the above- mentioned construction-related measure is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. By including a construction-related mitigation measures without properly committing to its implementation,the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the following energy-, area-, and water-related operational mitigation measures (see excerpts below) (Attachment A, pp. 72, 77, 79; Appendix F, pp. 70, 75, 77): Energy-Related Mitigation Measures: 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Install High Efficiency Lighting Install Energy Efficient Appliances Area-Related Mitigation Measures: 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area No Hearths Installed Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies Water-Related Mitigation Measures: 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 29"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf,p. 6. 12 Page 570 As a result of the above-mentioned water-related operational mitigation measures,the model includes an efficient irrigation water use reduction of 20% (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 32; Appendix F, pp. 30). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value r tblWaterMitigation •UseWaterEfficientlmgationSystemPercen� 6.1 26 L [Reduction As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.30 However the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data"table, only provides justification for the inclusion of the area-related operational mitigation measures, which states: "SCAQMD Rule 1113" (Appendix A, pp. 27; Appendix F, pp. 25). Furthermore, regarding sustainable design features,the IS/MND states: "The proposed Project would be designed to exceed the 2019 Title 24 energy efficient standards by approximately 7.2 percent in one building and by approximately 2.5 percent in the other, approximately 10 percent more efficient than 2016 Title 24 standards [...] Water and energy efficient mechanical equipment and electric appliances (i.e., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning(HVAC), water heaters, kitchen appliances and plumbing)that require less usage intensity for operation and comply with Title 24 of the California Government Code" (p. 1-15). However,the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures remains unsupported for two reasons. First,the inclusion of the operational mitigation measures, based on the Project's purported compliance with Title 24 and SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsupported.As previously stated, according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures: "By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts."31 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures "are not part of the original project design" and are intended to go "above-and-beyond" existing regulatory requirements. As such,the inclusion of these measures, based on the Project's vague compliance with Title 24 and SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsubstantiated. 3°CalEEMod User's Guide,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01 user-39-s- guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2,9. 31"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p.5. 13 Page 571 Second, the IS/MND fails to formally include the above-mentioned design features as Project-level mitigation measures.This is incorrect, as AEP guidance states: "While not"mitigation", a good practice is to include those project design feature(s)that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact" (emphasis added).32 As you can see in the excerpt above, design features that are not formally included as mitigation measures in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether.Thus, as the above-mentioned energy-, area-, and water-related operational measures are not formally included as mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.As a result, the inclusion of the above- mentioned operational mitigation measures in the model is incorrect. By including several operational mitigation measures without properly committing to their implementation,the model may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Provide Summer and Winter CalEEMod Output Files As previously discussed,the IS/MND's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated by CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 4-8).33 CalEEMod provides three types of output files—annual, summer, and winter. Specifically,the CalEEMod User's Guide states: "The available reports include: Annual, Summer(peak) Daily, Winter(peak) Daily, Mitigation and Summary of peak daily emissions and annual GHG emissions.34 As demonstrated above,the CalEEMod summer and winter output files provide peak daily emissions estimates in pounds per day("lbs/day"). Furthermore,the IS/MND quantifies the Project's construction- related and operational maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions and compares them to the applicable SCAQMD thresholds (see excerpts below) (p. 4-8,Table 4.3-14-9,Table 4.3-2). 32"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://cegaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 33 CAPCOA(November 2017)CalEEMod User's Guide, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 34 CAPCOA(November 2017)CalEEMod User's Guide, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4,p.61. 14 Page 572 Table 4.3-1.Maximum Regional Daily Emissions During Construction VOC NOx CO SOx PM-10 PM2.5 (Ibslday) (Ibslday) (lbslday) (lbslday) (Ibslday) (lbs/day) Maximum Regional Daily Emissions 29.1 69.8 81.3 0.2 8.9 4.1 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Source:TAHA 2021 CO=carbon monoxide;lbs/day=pounds per day;NOx=nitrogen oxide;PM10=particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter;PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;SOx=sulfur oxide;VOC=volatile organic compounds Table 4.3-2.Daily Operational Emissions (2024} VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 (Ibslday) (lbs/day) (Ibslday) (Ibslday) (lbslday) {Ibslday} Daily Operational Emissions' 8.7 6.0 56.3 D.I 12.8 3.6 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Source TAHA 2021 I Includes area (e g..consumer products and landscaping),energy(consumption of energy),and mobile(e.g._ vehicle trips)sources CO=carbon monoxide;lbslday=pounds per day;NOx=nitrogen oxide;PM10=particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter;PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;SOx=sulfur oxide;VOC=volatile organic compounds However, review of the AQ Assessment and GHG Assessment demonstrates that the summer and winter CalEEMod output files are not disclosed.As such, we cannot verify that the above-mentioned emissions estimates are an accurate reflection of the peak daily emissions reported in the IS/MND's CalEEMod output files.As the IS/MND fails to provide the summer and winter output files,the IS/MND's air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to include an adequate air quality analysis and disclose all CalEEMod output files. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis ("HRA"). Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND states: "The SCAQMD has not established a mass daily screening threshold for diesel emissions, and the only established TAC significance thresholds require estimating concentrations of TAC in ambient air resulting from project emissions using intensive air dispersion modeling. However, the low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment combined with the brevity of the construction period and local meteorological characteristics indicate that the proposed Project would not generate substantial emissions over an extended period of time that could cause a health risk to adjacent land uses. In addition,the size of the Project site indicates that only during a limited portion of construction activities would heavy-duty diesel- powered equipment be operating within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, and all construction equipment would be maintained in accordance with the CARB Portable Engine Air Toxics Control Measure and the Off-Road Diesel Regulation to control emissions to the maximum extent feasible.Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations" (p. 4-11). 15 Page 573 As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant construction-related health risk impact because the low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment,the short-term construction schedule, and the local meteorological conditions would not generate substantial toxic air contaminant ("TAC") emissions. Furthermore, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation,the IS/MND states: "The proposed Project would introduce a new multi-family residential land use to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and would be consistent with existing surrounding land use developments. Operation of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area.The proposed Project does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations.The operational emissions analysis shown in Table 4.3-2 demonstrates that operation of the proposed Project would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations.Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations" (p.4-12). As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less- than-significant operational health risk impact because the Project's operational criteria air pollutants would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. However, the IS/MND fails to mention or discuss the Project's operational TAC emissions whatsoever. However,the IS/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than- significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons. First, by failing to quantitatively evaluate the Project's construction-related and operational TAC emissions,the IS/MND fails to make a reasonable effort to connect these emissions to potential health risk impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors.This is incorrect, as construction of the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter("DPM") emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of approximately 24 months (p. 1- 16). Furthermore,the IS/MND indicates that Project operation would generate approximately 1,503 average daily vehicle trips,which would generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 4-9). However,the IS/MND fails to discuss Project- generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects.Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project's construction-related and operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors,the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse impacts on human health. Second,the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment("OEHHA"),the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines:Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015.This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer 16 Page 574 risks to nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project's construction duration vastly exceeds the 2-month requirement set forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance. Furthermore, the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident("MEIR"). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore,we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA.These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions be included in an EIR for the Project. Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors,the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.35 Thus, pursuant to CEQA, an analysis of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted. Screening-Level Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk analysis we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.36 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA37 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated ("CAPCOA")'guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening analyses ("HRSAs").A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. In order to estimate the health risk impacts posed to residential sensitive receptors as a result of the Project's construction-related and operational TAC emissions, we prepared a preliminary HRA using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the CalEEMod output files included in the IS/MND. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.The IS/MND's CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate 35"South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds."SCAQMD,April 2019,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 36 U.S. EPA(April 2011)AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 37"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 38 CAPCOA(July 2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_H RA_LU_Guidel ines_8-6-09.pdf. 17 Page 575 approximately 799 pounds of DPM over the 735-day construction period.39 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources.To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation: grams 799.2 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate ( ) = x x x = 0.00571 g/s second 735 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00571 grams per second ("g/s"). Subtracting the 735-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction,the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project's operational DPM for an additional 28 years, approximately.The IS/MND's operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 86 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation: grams 85.8 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate ( ) = x x x = 0.00123 g/s second 365 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00123 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 5.2-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with dimensions of approximately 205- by 103-meters.A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures,the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.4° The IS/MND indicates that the nearest sensitive receptors are residences 50 feet, or 15 meters, away from the project site (p. 4-47,Table 4.13-4). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual resident("MEIR") is located approximately 100 meters from the Project site.Thus,the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 9.101 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%,we get an annualized average concentration of 0.9101 p.g/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 1.967 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour 39 See Attachment B for calculations. 49"Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised." EPA, 1992,available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf;see also"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p.4-36. 18 Page 576 concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1967 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR. We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. Consistent with the 735-day construction schedule included in the Project's CalEEMod output files,the annualized average concentration for Project construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy(0.25 years) and the first 1.76 years of the infantile stage of life (0—2 years); and the annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period,which makes up the remaining and the 0.24 years of the infantile stage of life (0—2 years),the entire child stage of life, and the entire adult stage of life (16—30 years). Consistent with OEHHA guidance and recommended by the SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASF")to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.41,42,43 According to this guidance,the quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant), as well as multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2—16 years). We also included the quantified cancer risk without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution in accordance with older OEHHA guidance from 2003.This guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario than what is currently recommended by SCAQMD,the air quality district with jurisdiction over the City, and several other air districts in the state. Furthermore, in accordance with the guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.44 Finally, according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home ("FAH")Value of 1 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors.45 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days.The results of our calculations are shown below. 41"Draft Environmental Impact Report(IS/MND)for the Proposed The Exchange(SCH No. 2018071058)."SCAQMD, March 2019,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/comment- letters/2019/march/RVC190115-03.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p.4. 42"California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, May 2017,available at: http://www.baagmd.gov/'/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/ceqa guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56;see also"Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards." BAAQMD, May 2011, available at:http://www.baagmd.gov/' media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling %20Approach.ashx, p.65,86. 43"Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document."SJVAPCD, May 2015,available at:https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf, p.8, 20,24. 44"Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act,"July 2018,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588supplementalguidelines.pdf, p. 16. "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf 4s"Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1,and 212."SCAQMD,August 2017,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed- Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf, p.7. 19 Page 577 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Emissions Duration Concentration Breathing Cancer Risk Cancer Risk Age Group ASF Source (years) (ug/m3) Rate(L/kg-day) (without ASFs*) (with ASFs*) 3rd Construction 0.25 0.9101 361 1.24E-06 10 1.24E-05 Trimester 1.76 0.9101 0.24 0.1967 Infant Total 2 2.71E-05 10 2.71E-04 (Age 0-2) Child Operation 14 0.1967 572 2.37E-05 3 7.12E-05 (Age 2-16) Adult Operation 14 0.1967 261 7.91E-06 1 7.91E-06 (Age 16-30) Lifetime 30 6.00E-05 3.63E-04 *We,along with CARB and SCAQMD,recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance,which includes ASFs. As demonstrated in the table above,the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing ASFs, is approximately 12.4, 271, 71.2, and 7.91 in one million, respectively.The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), utilizing ASFs, is approximately 363 in one million.The 3rd trimester, infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. Utilizing ASFs is the most conservative, health-protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and reflects recommendations from the air district. Results without ASFs are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis. Regardless, excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, without ASFs, are approximately 1.24, 27.1, 23.7, and 7.91 in one million, respectively.The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), without ASFs, is approximately 60 in one million. While we recommend the use of ASFs, the Project's infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks without ASFs, as estimated by SWAPE, exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million regardless,thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA,which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection.46 The purpose of the screening-level 46"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5 20 Page 578 construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project's emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used.Therefore, our screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact,the City should prepare an EIR analysis with an HRA which makes a reasonable effort to connect the Project's air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors.Thus,the City should prepare an updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year("MT CO2e/year"),which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year(p. 4-31,Table 4.8-1). Table 4.8-1. Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source Category Annual GHG Emissions(MTCO2e per year) Amortized Construction Emissions(Direct) 108.7 Area Source Emissions(Direct) 4.5 Energy Source Emissions (Indirect) 597.6 Mobile Source Emissions (Direct) 1,794.0 Solid Waste Disposal Emissions(Indirect) 62.2 Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment(Indirect) 101.0 Total Annual GHG Emissions 2,668.0 Threshold 3,000 Exceed Threshold? No Source:TAHA 2021 Furthermore,the IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS,the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan ("CAP") in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p.4-31—4-32). However,the IS/MND's GHG analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for five reasons: (1) The IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; (3) SWAPE's updated analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact; (4) The IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB's Scoping Plan; and (5) The IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG's RTP/SCS. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 MT CO2e/year(p. 4-31,Table 4.8-1). However,the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis is 21 Page 579 unsubstantiated. As previously discussed,when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQ Assessment and GHG Assessment as Appendix A and Appendix F to the IS/MND, respectively,we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result,the model underestimates the Project's emissions, and the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment. 2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p.4-31,Table 4.8-1). However,the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2/year threshold, the SCAQMD's 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as "AB 32", was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.47 Furthermore,AEP guidance states: "[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon,the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone."48 As it is currently September 2021,thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such,the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the IS/MND's less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead,we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.49 3) Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact SWAPE's updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact,when applying the outdated SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year.The updated CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE with Project-specific information, disclose the Project's mitigated emissions,which include approximately 150 MT CO2e of total construction emissions (sum of 2022, 2023, and 2024) and approximately 3,824 MT CO2e/year of net annual operational emissions (sum of area-, energy-, mobile-, waste-, and water-related emissions). When amortizing the Project's construction-related GHG 4'HEALTH &SAFETY CODE 38550,available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml?IawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 48"Beyond Newhall and 2020:A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California."Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP),October 2016,available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016 Final White Paper.pdf, p. 39. 49"Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group#15."SCAQMD,September 2010,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 22 Page 580 emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project's operational GHG emissions, we estimate net annual GHG emissions of approximately 3,975 MT CO2e/year(see table below). SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Phase Proposed Project (MT CO2e/year) Construction (amortized over 30 years) 150.54 Area 67.31 Energy 785.56 Mobile 2,546.48 Waste 293.70 Water 131.08 Total Annual Operational 3,824.13 Net Annual GHG Emissions 3,974.67 Threshold 3,000 Exceed? Yes As demonstrated above,the Project's estimated net annual GHG emissions exceed the outdated SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year, thus resulting in a significant impact not previously addressed or mitigated in the IS/MND. As stated above, this threshold is outdated, and we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.50 However, as the IS/MND fails to provide the Project's estimated number of residents and employees,we are unable to compare the Project's emissions to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target.As such, an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines. 4) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan As previously discussed,the IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan to determine Project GHG significance (p. 4-31). However,this is incorrect, as the IS/MND fails to consider performance-based measures proposed by CARB. i. Passenger& Light Duty VMT Per Capita Benchmarks per SB 375 In reaching the State's long-term GHG emission reduction goals, CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan explicitly cites to SB 375 and the VMT reductions anticipated under the implementation of Sustainable Community Strategies.51 CARB has identified the population and daily VMT from passenger autos and so"Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group#15."SCAQMD,September 2010,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 51"California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan."CARB, November 2017,available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping plan 2017.pdf, p. 25,98, 101-103. 23 Page 581 light-duty vehicles at the state and county level for each year between 2010 to 2050 under a "baseline scenario"that includes "current projections of VMT included in the existing Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCSs) adopted by the State's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) pursuant to SB 375 as of 2015."52 By dividing the projected daily VMT by the population, we calculated the daily VMT per capita for each year at the state and county level for 2010 (baseline year), 2022 (Project operational year), and 2030(target years under SB 32) (see table below). 2017 Scoping Plan Daily VMT Per Capita San Bernardino County State Year Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita 2010 2,043,484 55,741,307.23 27.28 37,335,085 836,463,980.46 22.40 2024 2,327,528 62,431,182.19 26.82 41,994,283 926,776,780.89 22.07 2030 2,478,888 65,538,854.28 26.44 43,939,250 957,178,153.19 21.78 As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project's consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performance- based daily VMT per capita projections,the IS/MND's claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. 5) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards under SCAG's RTP/SCS Here, as discussed above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would be consistent with SCAG's RTP/SCS(p. 4-32). However,the IS/MND fails to consider whether or not the Project meets any of the specific performance-based goals underlying SCAG's RTP/SCS and SB 375, such as: i) per capita GHG emission targets, or ii) daily vehicles miles traveled ("VMT") per capita benchmarks. i. SB 375 Per Capita GHG Emission Goals SB 375 was signed into law in September 2008 to enhance the state's ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles (autos and light-duty trucks). In March 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets requiring a 19 percent decrease in VMT for the SCAG region by 2035.This goal is reflected in SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR"), in which the 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR updates the per capita emissions to 18.8 lbs/day in 2035 (see excerpt below).s3 Sz"Supporting Calculations for 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions," Excel Sheet"Readme."CARB, January 2019,available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 01/sp mss vmt calculations ian19 0.xlsx. ss"Connect SoCal Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report."SCAG, May 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir connectsocal complete.pdf?1607981618, p.3.8-74. 24 Page 582 Table 3. -10 SB 375 Analysis 2005(Baseline) 2 (Plan) 2035(Nan) Resident population(per I,illk)) 17,161 19.194 21.110 CO2 Enissians(per l,11C]4`1tons) ?(i4Ay' 204.5e I98.6fb1 Per capita enussinrrs(priundsiday) 23_s 21.3 "Kg %difference From Plan(2020)to Baseline{20(15) —f3% %difference from Plan(2035}to Baseline(2005) Note: 1n1 Parsed ore EMFAc2oM7 lb/Bawd fin EJr1FA2014 and SCAG rrradelirrig,2019_ Jd lmefrrrles of rrt dd adjbstrrrertta far21135 and 2045 Sburcc. SCAG rrmrdeling,201 blip:Thr at..scag-a.covicrrorreitreew'CammitlreUocLrb my/faMlRCPC11?!_il.5)iiClayerFri) As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project's consistency with the SCAG's per capita emissions, the IS/MND's claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG's RTP/SCS is unsupported.An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. i. SB 375 RTP/SCS Daily VMT Per Capita Target Under the SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS, daily VMT per capita in the SCAG region should decrease from 23.2 VMT in 2016 to 20.7 VMT by 2045.54 Daily VMT per capita in Los Angeles County should decrease from 22.2 to 19.2 VMT during that same period.55 Here, however,the IS/MND fails to consider any of the above-mentioned performance-based VMT targets. As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project's consistency with the SCAG's performance-based daily VMT per capita projections,the IS/MND's claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG's RTP/SCS is unsupported.An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. Design Features Should Be Included as Mitigation Measures Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. We recommend that the IS/MND implement all PDFs, such as including water and energy efficient mechanical equipment and electric appliances,water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems, and electric vehicle charging stations, as formal mitigation measures. As a result, we could guarantee that these measures would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. Including formal mitigation measures by properly committing to their implementation would result in verifiable emissions reductions that may help reduce emissions to less- than-significant levels. 54"Connect SoCal."SCAG,September 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176,pp. 138. ss"Connect SoCal."SCAG,September 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138. 25 Page 583 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented.This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations Attachment C:AERSCREEN Output Files Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV Attachment E: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV 26 Page 584 Attachment A CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 7.60 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 T 4,900.00 i 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 300.00 + Space ; 0.00 120,000.00 + 0 Parking Lot 226.00 + Space ; 1.80 90,400.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,374.80 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.07 3,000.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 259,000.00 + 741 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 r r + I- Strip Mall 3.34 1000sgft 0.00 3,339.00 0 • • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) v 1 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data co Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor" Land Use - See SWAPE comments on "Failure to Model Required Amount of Parking" and "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Us Enclosed Parking= 57% of total, Parking Lot=43% of total parking. CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Construction Phase-Consistent with IS/MND's model Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Architectural Coating -See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Woodstoves -Woodstoves: consistent with IS/MND's model. Fireplaces: See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values" Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Energy Use- Water And Wastewater- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. v Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Solid Waste Generation Rates" Total adds up to 584 tons/year co CSilstruction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces • FireplaceWoodMass } 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces Y FireplaceWoodMass + T 1,019.20 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 220.15 259.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 0.85 T 1.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 25.90 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 0.10 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 12.95 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 0.05 T 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 60.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 45.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 24.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 12.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 21,180.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 7,600.00 T 4,900.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 1,000.00 T 1,570.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 3,340.00 T 3,339.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.17 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.70 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.03 T 1.80 m tblLandUse LotAcreage + 6.82 T 3.00 c tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.06 T 0.00 critblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.08 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount + 1.00 T 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 4 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblOffRoadEquipment i OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 3.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor * 702.44 630 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 119.14 555.83 t • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber * 2,648.00 2,880.00 CD 4 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber * 1,324.00 1,440.00 al co tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 66.00 40.00 4 4 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber • 66.00 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber ,i 15.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 57.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips CC_TL ,i 8.40 10.90 r • tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL f 6.90 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips CW_TL * 16.60 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 40.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL * 8.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TL * 5.90 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips CD Y HS_TTP * 19.20 T 20.00 tblVehicleTrips HSoi _TTP * 19.20 20.00 ._� tblVehicleTrips HW_TL * 14.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP * 40.20 40.00 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 6 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP f 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP ,i 15.00 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 45.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 6.39 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 22.75 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 5.67 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 2.46 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 9.10 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 42.04 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR ,i 5.86 5.48 r • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR f 16.74 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 4.84 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 1.05 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 13.60 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 20.43 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 6.65 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 1.89 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 5.81 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 11.03 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips Y WD_TR * 33.82 Ttv 0.00 CD tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 44.32 24.86 oi ._ram4 c) tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 16,874,892.64 16,940,046.66 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 177,429.43 0.00 4 4 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate • 10,638,519.27 10,679,594.63 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 827,895.26 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic f 12.95 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic • ,i 0.05 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 12.95 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 0.05 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass r 999.60 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary v CO CD 01 co 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 2022 •1 0.4472 1 3.9343 1 3.8304 1 9.7000e- 1 0.2963 1 0.1598 1 0.4562 1 0.0674 1 0.1548 0.2223 : 0.0000 1 868.1095 1 868.1095 1 0.0981 1 0.0000 i 870.5612 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I Ti ; J J J J J J J J I J J J I 1 I : I I 1 I 1 1 2023 •1 0.5684 1 3.9296 1 5.6253 1 0.0118 0.3179 1 0.1765 1 0.4944 1 0.0852 1 0.1749 ; 0.2601 : 0.0000 1 1,036.191 1 1,036.191 1 0.0775 1 0.0000 i 1,038.127 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I 1 I I 1 3 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T : 1 : 1 : : 1 I 1 1 2024 •1 1.9424 1.2399 1 1.8664 3.9000e- 1 0.1021 0.0512 0.1533 1 0.0274 1 0.0502 ; 0.0776 : 0.0000 1 345.0841 1 345.0841 1 0.0325 1 0.0000 : 345.8963 9 I I 1 003 I I I I I . I I I 1 9 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 I 1 Maximum 1.9424 3.9343 5.6253 0.0118 0.3179 0.1765 0.4944 0.0852 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.191 1,036.191 0.0981 0.0000 1,038.127 1 1 3 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2 5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 •i 0.4472 1 3.9343 I 3.8304 1 9.7000e- 1 0.2963 1 0.1598 1 0.4562 I 0.0674 1 0.1548 : 0.2223 • 0.0000 868.1089 1868.1089 1 0.0981 1 0.0000 I 870.5606 •1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 . I 1 1 1 .1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 1 •1 I I I 1 I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J v J J J 13 I I I I I I I I I I I v 1. 2023 • 0.5684 1 3.9296 1 5.6253 1 0.0118 1 0.3179 1 0.1765 1 0.4944 1 0.0852 1 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.190 1 1,036.190 1 0.0775 1 0.0000 1 1,038.126 co '1 I I I I I I I I . 3 I 3 I I 1 5 '1 I I I I I I I I , • 1 1 I 1 CD •1 i i i i i i i i i J1. 2024 �i 1.9424 1 1.2399 I 1.8664 1 3.9000e- 1 0.1021 1 0.0512 1 0.1533 I 0.0274 1 0.0502 0.0776 . 0.0000 345.0839 1345.0839 1 0.0325 1 0.0000 1345.8960 CO N q I I 1 003 1 I I I I . I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 Maximum 1.9424 3.9343 5.6253 0.0118 0.3179 0.1765 0.4944 0.0852 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.190 1,036.190 0.0981 0.0000 1,038.126 3 3 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) 1 3-5-2022 6-4-2022 1.4079 1.4079 2 6-5-2022 9-4-2022 1.2728 1.2728 3 9-5-2022 12-4-2022 1.3150 1.3150 4 12-5-2022 3-4-2023 1.2210 1.2210 5 3-5-2023 6-4-2023 1.1835 1.1835 6 6-5-2023 9-4-2023 1.0936 1.0936 7 9-5-2023 12-4-2023 1.0817 1.0817 8 12-5-2023 3-4-2024 1.0395 1.0395 9 3-5-2024 6-4-2024 0.9290 0.9290 10 6-5-2024 9-4-2024 1.5127 1.5127 Highest 1.5127 1.5127 0) en Cr; 01 co ca CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Area •i 1.1609 0.0849 1 2.7100 4.9000e- 0.0192 0.0192 1 0.0192 0.0192 .. 0.0000 i 66.8289 1 66.8289 5.4300e- 1 1.1400e- i 67.3059 •1 I 1 I 004 1 I I 1 I . I I I 003 I 003 1 '1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 1 :I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 Energy •1 0.0209 1 0.1788 0.0766 1.1400e- 1 1 0.0145 1 0.0145 1 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 1 782.0369 1 782.0369 1 0.0304 1 9.2700e- i 785.5608 9 I I I 003 1 I I I I . I I I I 003 1'I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 I 1 :I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Mobile .1 0.4455 1 3.0770 1 6.0309 0.0274 1 2.2695 1 0.0166 1 2.2862 1 0.6082 0.0155 0.6237 : 0.0000 1 2,543.694 1 2,543.694 1 0.1116 1 0.0000 i 2,546.483 9 I I 1 1 I I I I . 1 3 1 3 1 I I 4 'I I I I I 1 1 1 1 , . I I I 1 1 :I J J J J J J J J V I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Waste •1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 118.5467 1 0.0000 1 118.5467 1 7.0059 1 0.0000 i 293.6945 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I 1 :I J J J 1 J J J J 7 I J J J T I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 Water •I 1 1 1 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 5.9020 1 105.3330 1 111.2350 1 0.6110 1 0.0153 i 131.0754 9 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.6273 3.3406 8.8175 0.0291 2.2695 0.0503 2.3199 0.6082 0.0492 0.6574 124.4487 3,497.893 3,622.341 7.7644 0.0257 3,824.119 1 8 9 0) co CD 01 co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 Area •i 1.1609 1 0.0849 1 2.7100 1 4.9000e- 1 1 0.0192 1 0.0192 1 1 0.0192 0.0192 : 0.0000 1 66.8289 1 66.8289 1 5.4300e- 1 1.1400e- i 67.3059 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 003 I 'I 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J -r I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 1 Energy •1 0.0209 1 0.1788 1 0.0766 1 1.1400e- 1 0.0145 1 0.0145 1 1 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 1 782.0369 1 782.0369 1 0.0304 1 9.2700e- i 785.5608 9 I I 1 003 I I I I I . I I I I 003 1'1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J -r I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 1 Mobile •1 0.4455 1 3.0770 1 6.0309 1 0.0274 2.2695 1 0.0166 1 2.2862 1 0.6082 1 0.0155 0.6237 : 0.0000 1 2,543.694 1 2,543.694 1 0.1116 1 0.0000 i 2,546.483 9 1 I 1 I 1 I I I . I 3 I 3 1 I 1 4 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . I J J J -r I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Waste •1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 118.5467 1 0.0000 1 118.5467 1 7.0059 1 0.0000 1 293.6945 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 Water •1 1 1 1 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 5.9020 1 105.3330 1 111.2350 1 0.6110 i 0.0153 i 131.0754 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 '1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 . I 1 1 I 1 Total 1.6273 3.3406 8.8175 0.0291 2.2695 0.0503 2.3199 0.6082 0.0492 0.6574 124.4487 3,497.893 3,622.341 7.7644 0.0257 3,824.119 1 8 I 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Cstruction Phase v co m cn co cn CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 :Demolition :Demolition 13/5/2022 :4/1/2022 : 5: 20: + I 1 1 1 2 :Site Preparation :Grading 14/30/2022 :5/27/2022 : 51 20 + i 1 3 •Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Site Preparation 4/2/2022 :4/15/2022 : 51 10: I + , 1 i i 4 :Construction-East Building :Building Construction 6/25/2022 :5/12/2023 : 51 230: + , 1 I 1 1 5 :Grading :Grading 5/28/2022 :6/24/2022 : 51 20: + , 1 I 1 1 6 :Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation 4/16/2022 :4/29/2022 : 51 10: + I 1 1 , 1 7 :Construction-West Building :Building Construction 5/13/2023 :3/29/2024 : 51 230: + , 1 I 1 1 8 :Paving-East Building :Paving 3/30/2024 :4/26/2024 : 51 20: + , I , 1 1 9 :Architectural Coatings East Bldg :Architectural Coating 5/25/2024 :6/21/2024 : 5: 20: + I 1 1 , 1 10 :Paving-West Building :Paving 4/27/2024 :5/24/2024 : 51 20: + 1 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:Architectural Coating .6/22/2024 :7/19/2024 5' 20 I Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 Acres of Paving: 1.8 Residential Indoor: 527,654; Residential Outdoor: 175,885; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,359; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,120; Striped Parking Area: 12,624 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws , 11 8.00 81: 0.73 Dt molition :Excavators , 11 8.004 158' 0.38 Ui r i -I-Demolition 'Generator Sets , 21 4.00, 84' 0.74 Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.00, 247' 0.40 + I- r Site Preparation :Crawler Tractors 2. 8.00' 212: 0.43 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual •Site Preparation •Excavators 0 8.00• 158• 0.38 Site Preparation Graders , 1 8.001 187: 0.41 --+ e Site Preparation +Rollers , 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --+ e Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers , 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 , Site Preparation Scrapers , 1 8.001 367' 0.48 --+ Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 0; 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ e Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 , Trenching/Utilites-East Building Excavators , 1 8.001 158' 0.38 --+ Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Rubber Tired Dozers , 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --+ e Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 , Trenching/Utilites-East Building Trenchers , 2 8.001 78' 0.50 a ' Construction-East Building +Air Compressors , 10 8.001 78' 0.48 --+ Construction-East Building Cranes , 1! 7.001 231' 0.29 --+ e Construction-East Building Forklifts , 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --+ e Construction-East Building Generator Sets , 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ e Construction-East Building Rough Terrain Forklifts , 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 Construction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 ,_ ' Construction-East Building !Welders , 0 8.001 46' 0.45 --+ Grading Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 e Grading Excavators , 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 ,_ _ Grading Graders , 1! 8.001 187' 0.41 ,_ _ Grading Rollers , 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 Gr ling +Rubber Tired Dozers , 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 .-ccz - ' + Gr ding +Scrapers , 1; 8.001 367' 0.48 cri•-co - - --+ Grating +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 0; 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ e Trenching/Utilities-West Building Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.00' 212' 0.43 * F Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Excavators 1. 8.00' 158: 0.38 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Rubber Tired Dozers 0• 8.00• 247• 0.401 Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.001 97: 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 : Construction-West Building +Air Compressors ; 10 8.00178' 0.48 --+ Construction-West Building :Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --+ Construction-West Building Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --+ Construction-West Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-West Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --+ Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 --+ Construction-West Building Welders ; 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 --+ Paving-East Building +Pavers ; 2; 8.00 130' 0.42 , Paving-East Building Paving Equipment ; 2 8.00 132' 0.36 --+ Paving-East Building :Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --+ Architectural Coatings East Bldg !Air Compressors ; 4; 6.001 78' 0.48 --+ Paving-West Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --+ Paving-West Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 Paving-West Building Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 * F Architectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 4' 6.00' 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT v CD cn co co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 40.001 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT ' I I I ' J Site Preparation 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT I I I ' J Trenching/Utilites- 6; 40.00. 0.001 2,880.001 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+Q1 1il.+inn £ • I I I I j Construction-East i 15: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q 11il.Jinn , I I I I J -i - T Grading 6; 40.001 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix �HDT_Mix HHDT ' ' I I I ' J -1 - T Trenching/Utilities- 6: 40.001 0.00 i 1,440.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix HHDT U/..c+1:21 dlrlinn. I I I I I Construction-West i 14: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q 11il.Jinn , I I I I j Paving-East Building 's 6; 40.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT ' I I I ' J Architectural Coatings i 4; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+DI,I, • I I I I J Paving-West Building; 6: 40.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT I 1 , : I i r I- r * - -- T + T Architectural Coatings : 4' 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix 'HHDT \Nnc+1:2If1n 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr v rn °OOff-Road ;I 0.0256 I 0.2509 I 0.1776 Ii 3.5000e- I I 0.0122 I 0.0122 I I 0.0114 : 0.0114 � 0.0000 I 30.5702 I 30.5702 I 6.8800e- I 0.0000 i 30.7422 c i I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 1 (.0 -1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I G Total 0.0256 0.2509 0.1776 3.5000e- 0.0122 0.0122 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 30.5702 30.5702 6.8800e- 0.0000 30.7422 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr ;r I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 Hauling 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I 1 1 1 1 1 : I I : 1 1 T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I T Worker .1 1.7200e- I 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 14.0000e- 14.3900e- 13.0000e- 14.4100e- 11.1600e- 13.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 1 3.5085 I 3.5085 19.0000e- I 0.0000 1 3.5107 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 : I I 1 005 I 1 'I I I I I 1 I 1 I , . I 1 1 1 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I Off-Road �i 0.0256 I 0.2509 I 0.1776 I 3.5000e- I 1 0.0122 I 0.0122 1 i 0.0114 0.0114 � 0.0000 i 30.5701 1 30.5701 I 6.8800e- I 0.0000 i 30.7422 1 I I 004 I I I I I . 1 I 003 I I 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I I13 Total 0.0256 0.2509 0.1776 3.5000e- 0.0122 0.0122 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 30.5701 30.5701 6.8800e- 0.0000 30.7422 (Q 004 003 CD 6) O O CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I I . I 1 I I •I I I I I I I I . I I I I ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Worker 91.7200e- i 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 3.0000e- 1.1900e- � 0.0000 i 3.5085 i 3.5085 i 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 003 I : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 1 I : 005 : 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust ii 1 1 1 i 0.0318 : 0.0000 i 0.0318 : 3.4400e- i 0.0000 : 3.4400e- •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J •J J J J J J J m J J J SD Road 9i 0.0255 i 0.2967 0.1645 i 4.3000e- i 0.0117 i 0.0117 i 0.0108 0.0108 • 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 i 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 1 CD I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 0) Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0318 0.0117 0.0435 3.4400e- 0.0108 - 0.0142 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I II I I I I . I I I I ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 3.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.5085 i 3.5085 i 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 003 : : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 Fugitive Dust ;i 1 i i 0.0318 : 0.0000 i 0.0318 : 3.4400e- i 0.0000 : 3.4400e- : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J �ff-Road 9i 0.0255 i 0.2967 1 0.1645 i 4.3000e- i 1 0.0117 i 0.0117 •� i 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 37.5379 1 37.5379 i 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 0 '1 I I I 004 I I I I I • I I I '� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 CD0) Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0318 0.0117 0.0435 3.4400e- 0.0108 - 0.0142 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 0 004 003 IV CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I II I I I I . I I I I ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 3.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.5085 i 3.5085 i 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 003 : : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 Fugitive Dust ;i 1 i i 0.0139 : 0.0000 i 0.0139 : 1.5600e- i 0.0000 : 1.5600e- : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J SD Road •1 0.0104 I 0.1111 0.0766 i 1.5000e- i 5.5400e- i 5.5400e- i 5.1000e- 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 i 4.3600e- i 0.0000 1 13.5953 ;� 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 CD I I 1 I 1 I . I I I 0) Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 0.0139 5.5400e- 0.0195 1.5600e- 5.1000e- 6.6600e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 W 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 8.2500e- i 0.3078 : 0.0524 i 1.0900e- i 0.0248 1 7.7000e- i 0.0256 : 6.8100e- i 7.4000e- 7.5500e- •• 0.0000 i 105.4147 : 105.4147 i 5.8500e- i 0.0000 i 105.5610 9 003 I I : 003 i : 004 i I 003 I 004 003 . i i : 003 i 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 •I I 1 I I I I I I . I I I I i •I I I I I I I I I • I I I I i 9 J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker •i 8.6000e- i 6.3000e- : 6.5400e- i 2.0000e- i 2.1900e- : 1.0000e- i 2.2100e- : 5.8000e- i 1.0000e- 6.0000e- � 0.0000 i 1.7542 i 1.7542 i 5.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7554 9 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 Total 9.1100e- 0.3085 0.0589 1.1100e- 0.0270 7.8000e- 0.0278 7.3900e- 7.5000e- 8.1500e- 0.0000 107.1689 107.1689 5.9000e- 0.0000 107.3164 003 003 004 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 0.0139 : 0.0000 i 0.0139 : 1.5600e- i 0.0000 : 1.5600e- •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 •� I I I I •I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J SD Road 9i 0.0104 i 0.1111 0.0766 i 1.5000e- i 5.5400e- i 5.5400e- i 5.1000e- 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 i 4.3600e- i 0.0000 1 13.5953 u) 9 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 CD 1 1 I 1 I 1 I . I I I 1 0) Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 0.0139 5.5400e- 0.0195 1.5600e- 5.1000e- 6.6600e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 8.2500e- i 0.3078 : 0.0524 i 1.0900e- i 0.0248 1 7.7000e- i 0.0256 : 6.8100e- i 7.4000e- 7.5500e- •• 0.0000 i 105.4147 : 105.4147 i 5.8500e- i 0.0000 i 105.5610 9 003 I I : 003 i : 004 i I 003 I 004 003 . i i : 003 i 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I I 1 I I I I I I . I I I I i 'I I I I I I I I I • I I I I i ; J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 98.6000e- i 6.3000e- : 6.5400e- i 2.0000e- i 2.1900e- : 1.0000e- i 2.2100e- : 5.8000e- i 1.0000e- 6.0000e- � 0.0000 i 1.7542 i 1.7542 i 5.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7554 9 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 005 I Total 9.1100e- 0.3085 0.0589 1.1100e- 0.0270 7.8000e- 0.0278 7.3900e- 7.5000e- 8.1500e- 0.0000 107.1689 107.1689 5.9000e- 0.0000 107.3164 003 003 004 003 004 003 003 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 0.2658 i 2.1099 : 2.5492 i 4.3700e- i i 0.1106 i 0.1106 i i 0.1092 : 0.1092 •• 0.0000 i 376.9132 : 376.9132 i 0.0415 i 0.0000 i 377.9505 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I - Total 0.2658 2.1099 2.5492 4.3700e- 0.1106 0.1106 0.1092 0.1092 0.0000 376.9132 376.9132 0.0415 0.0000 377.9505 SD (Q 003 CD 0) O 01 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,� J J J T Vendor 9 6.6700e- i 0.2488 0.0495 i 7.1000e- i 0.0170 1 3.8000e- i 0.0174 : 4.9100e- i 3.6000e- 5.2800e- • 0.0000 i 68.0115 : 68.0115 i 4.4600e- i 0.0000 i 68.1231 9 003 004 004 003 004 003 ,� J J J T Worker •i 0.0581 i 0.0422 0.4411 i 1.3100e- i 0.1480 1 9.4000e- i 0.1490 : 0.0393 i 8.6000e- 0.0402 .• 0.0000 i 118.4104 1 118.4104 i 3.0800e- i 0.0000 i 118.4875 9 I : 1 003 : I 004 : I I 004 I 1 003 I I Total 0.0648 0.2910 0.4906 2.0200e- 0.1650 1.3200e- 0.1664 0.0442 1.2200e- 0.0455 0.0000 186.4219 186.4219 7.5400e- 0.0000 186.6105 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •I 0.2658 i 2.1099 : 2.5492 i 4.3700e- i i 0.1106 i 0.1106 i i 0.1092 : 0.1092 •• 0.0000 i 376.9128 i 376.9128 i 0.0415 i 0.0000 i 377.9500 •1 I I 003 I I I I I I I 1 •9 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I - Total 0.2658 2.1099 2.5492 4.3700e- 0.1106 0.1106 0.1092 0.1092 0.0000 376.9128 376.9128 0.0415 0.0000 377.9500 SD (Q 003 CD 0) O CS) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,� • J J J T Vendor 9 6.6700e- i 0.2488 0.0495 i 7.1000e- i 0.0170 1 3.8000e- i 0.0174 : 4.9100e- i 3.6000e- 5.2800e- • 0.0000 i 68.0115 : 68.0115 i 4.4600e- i 0.0000 i 68.1231 9 003 : : 004 : 004 : 003 : 004 003 ,� J J J Worker •i 0.0581 i 0.0422 0.4411 i 1.3100e- i 0.1480 1 9.4000e- i 0.1490 i 0.0393 i 8.6000e- 0.0402 .• 0.0000 i 118.4104 1 118.4104 i 3.0800e- i 0.0000 i 118.4875 9 I I I 003 I I 004 I I I 004 I I 003 I i 11 q I I I I I I I I • I 1 I Total 0.0648 0.2910 0.4906 2.0200e- 0.1650 1.3200e- 0.1664 0.0442 1.2200e- 0.0455 0.0000 186.4219 186.4219 7.5400e- 0.0000 186.6105 003 003 003 003 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 4 0.1751 i 1.3747 i 1.7892 i 3.0700e- i i 0.0679 i 0.0679 i i 0.0671 0.0671 •• 0.0000 i 265.2390 i 265.2390 i 0.0282 i 0.0000 i 265.9429 I I 003 I I I I I • I I i q I I I I I I I I I 1 I I - Total 0.1751 1.3747 1.7892 3.0700e- 0.0679 0.0679 0.0671 0.0671 0.0000 265.2390 265.2390 0.0282 0.0000 265.9429 SD CQ 003 CD al O v CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 9 . 1 I I ,I • J J J T Vendor 9 3.5400e- i 0.1350 0.0301 i 4.9000e- i 0.0120 1 1.3000e- i 0.0121 : 3.4600e- i 1.3000e- 3.5800e- • 0.0000 i 46.5437 : 46.5437 i 2.5200e- i 0.0000 i 46.6068 9 003 : : 004 : : 004 : 003 : 004 003 1 ,� J J J + Worker •i 0.0383 i 0.0267 0.2846 i 8.9000e- i 0.1042 1 6.4000e- i 0.1048 : 0.0277 i 5.9000e- 0.0283 .• 0.0000 i 80.1971 1 80.1971 i 1.9400e- i 0.0000 1 80.2457 9 : 004 : 1 004 1 1 : 004 I I : 003 : I Total 0.0418 0.1617 0.3146 1.3800e- 0.1161 7.7000e- 0.1169 0.0311 7.2000e- 0.0318 0.0000 126.7408 126.7408 4.4600e- 0.0000 126.8524 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •I 0.1751 i 1.3747 i 1.7892 i 3.0700e- i i 0.0679 i 0.0679 i i 0.0671 0.0671 •• 0.0000 i 265.2387 i 265.2387 i 0.0282 i 0.0000 i 265.9426 •1 I I 003 I I I I I I I 1 •9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I - Total 0.1751 1.3747 1.7892 3.0700e- 0.0679 0.0679 0.0671 0.0671 0.0000 265.2387 265.2387 0.0282 0.0000 265.9426 SD CQ 003 CD al O Co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I . I 1 I I ,I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 3.5400e- i 0.1350 0.0301 i 4.9000e- i 0.0120 1 1.3000e- i 0.0121 : 3.4600e- i 1.3000e- 3.5800e- • 0.0000 i 46.5437 : 46.5437 i 2.5200e- i 0.0000 i 46.6068 9 003 004 004 003 004 003 1 �� J J J J J J J J • 7 I J J J + Worker •i 0.0383 i 0.0267 0.2846 i 8.9000e- i 0.1042 1 6.4000e- i 0.1048 : 0.0277 i 5.9000e- 0.0283 .• 0.0000 i 80.1971 1 80.1971 i 1.9400e- i 0.0000 i 80.2457 1 I' 004 004 I 003 I I Total 0.0418 0.1617 0.3146 1.3800e- 0.1161 7.7000e- 0.1169 0.0311 7.2000e- 0.0318 0.0000 126.7408 126.7408 4.4600e- 0.0000 126.8524 003 004 004 003 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 Fugitive Dust .1 I i i i 0.0239 i 0.0000 i 0.0239 i 2.5800e- i 0.0000 : 2.5800e- : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� I I I I I I 003 I 003I I I •� . I I I J J J J J J J J m J J J �ff-Road 9 0.0255 i 0.2967 1 0.1645 i 4.3000e- i i 0.0117 i 0.0117 •i i 0.0108 � 0.0108 0.0000 37.5379 1 37.5379 i 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 '1I I004 I I I I I . I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDTotal 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0239 0.0117 0.0356 2.5800e- 0.0108 0.0133 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 O 004 003 CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I II I I I I . I I I I ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 3.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.5085 i 3.5085 i 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 003 : : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 Fugitive Dust ;i 1 i i 0.0239 i 0.0000 i 0.0239 : 2.5800e- i 0.0000 : 2.5800e- : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J �ff-Road 9i 0.0255 i 0.2967 1 0.1645 i 4.3000e- i 1 0.0117 i 0.0117 •� i 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 37.5379 1 37.5379 i 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 '1 I I I 004 I I I I I • I I I '� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 CD0) Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0239 0.0117 0.0356 2.5800e- 0.0108 - 0.0133 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 0 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I II I I I I . I I I I ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J 7 J J J + Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 3.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.5085 i 3.5085 i 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 003 : : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust ;i i i i i 6.9600e- i 0.0000 i 6.9600e- i 7.8000e- i 0.0000 : 7.8000e- : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I 003 I I 003 I 004 I 004 . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J SD Road 91 0.0104 i 0.1111 0.0766 i 1.5000e- i 5.5400e- i 5.5400e- i 5.1000e- 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 i 4.3600e- i 0.0000 i 13.5953 co ;� 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 CD I I I 1 I I I . I I I Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 6.9600e- 5.5400e- 0.0125 7.8000e- 5.1000e- 5.8800e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 004 003 003 004 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 4.1200e- i 0.1539 : 0.0262 i 5.5000e- i 0.0124 1 3.9000e- i 0.0128 : 3.4000e- i 3.7000e- 3.7700e- •• 0.0000 i 52.7073 52.7073 i 2.9300e- i 0.0000 i 52.7805 9 003 i i i 004 i : 004 i I 003 I 004 003 . i i : 003 i 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 '9 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 '� 1 I I I I I I I . I I I MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker 9 8.6000e- i 6.3000e- : 6.5400e- i 2.0000e- i 2.1900e- : 1.0000e- i 2.2100e- : 5.8000e- i 1.0000e- 6.0000e- • 0.0000 i 1.7542 i 1.7542 i 5.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7554 9 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 Total 4.9800e- 0.1546 0.0327 5.7000e- 0.0146 4.0000e- 0.0150 3.9800e- 3.8000e- 4.3700e- 0.0000 54.4616 54.4616 2.9800e- 0.0000 54.5359 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 Fugitive Dust ;i 1 i i i 6.9600e- : 0.0000 i 6.9600e- : 7.8000e- i 0.0000 : 7.8000e- : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I 003 I I 003 I 004 I 004 . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J SD Road •1 0.0104 I 0.1111 0.0766 i 1.5000e- i 5.5400e- i 5.5400e- i 5.1000e- 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 i 4.3600e- i 0.0000 i 13.5953 ;� 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 CD I I 1 I I I . I I I 0) Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 6.9600e- 5.5400e- 0.0125 7.8000e- 5.1000e- 5.8800e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 N 004 003 003 004 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 4.1200e- i 0.1539 0.0262 i 5.5000e- i 0.0124 3.9000e- i 0.0128 3.4000e- i 3.7000e- 3.7700e- •• 0.0000 i 52.7073 52.7073 i 2.9300e- i 0.0000 i 52.7805 9 003 i i i 004 i i 004 i : 003 i 004 003 . i i : 003 i 1 ,� • J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I • I I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Worker 9 8.6000e- i 6.3000e- 6.5400e- i 2.0000e- i 2.1900e- 1.0000e- i 2.2100e- 5.8000e- i 1.0000e- 6.0000e- •• 0.0000 i 1.7542 i 1.7542 i 5.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7554 9 004 004 003 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 004 : 005 004 Total 4.9800e- 0.1546 0.0327 5.7000e- 0.0146 4.0000e- 0.0150 3.9800e- 3.8000e- 4.3700e- 0.0000 54.4616 54.4616 2.9800e- 0.0000 54.5359 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 0.2788 i 2.1123 : 2.9751 i 4.9200e- i i 0.1065 i 0.1065 i i 0.1059 : 0.1059 •• 0.0000 i 424.0827 : 424.0827 i 0.0371 i 0.0000 i 425.0093 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I i •9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I - Total 0.2788 2.1123 2.9751 4.9200e- 0.1065 0.1065 0.1059 0.1059 0.0000 424.0827 424.0827 0.0371 0.0000 425.0093 SD CQ 003 CD 0) Ca) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,� • J J J T Vendor 9 6.1500e- i 0.2344 0.0522 i 8.4000e- i 0.0208 1 2.3000e- i 0.0210 : 6.0000e- i 2.2000e- 6.2200e- • 0.0000 i 80.8390 : 80.8390 i 4.3800e- i 0.0000 i 80.9486 9 003 004 004 003 004 003 1 ,� J J J Worker •i 0.0665 i 0.0465 0.4942 i 1.5400e- i 0.1809 i 1.1100e- i 0.1820 i 0.0481 i 1.0300e- 0.0491 .• 0.0000 i 139.2896 1 139.2896 i 3.3800e- i 0.0000 i 139.3740 .1 1 003 1 : 003 1 I 1 003 I I 1 003 I I Total 0.0727 0.2809 0.5464 2.3800e- 0.2017 1.3400e- 0.2031 0.0541 1.2500e- 0.0553 0.0000 220.1287 220.1287 7.7600e- 0.0000 220.3227 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road .1 0.2788 i 2.1123 i 2.9751 i 4.9200e- i i 0.1065 i 0.1065 i i 0.1059 : 0.1059 : 0.0000 i 424.0822 i 424.0822 i 0.0371 i 0.0000 i 425.0088 •1 I I 003 I I I I I I I i 9I I I I I I I I I I I I - Total 0.2788 2.1123 2.9751 4.9200e- 0.1065 0.1065 0.1059 0.1059 0.0000 424.0822 424.0822 0.0371 0.0000 425.0088 SD CQ 003 CD 0) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,� J J J T Vendor 9 6.1500e- i 0.2344 0.0522 i 8.4000e- i 0.0208 1 2.3000e- i 0.0210 : 6.0000e- i 2.2000e- 6.2200e- • 0.0000 i 80.8390 : 80.8390 i 4.3800e- i 0.0000 i 80.9486 9 003 004 004 003 004 003 ,� J J J T Worker •i 0.0665 i 0.0465 0.4942 i 1.5400e- i 0.1809 1 1.1100e- i 0.1820 : 0.0481 i 1.0300e- 0.0491 .• 0.0000 i 139.2896 1 139.2896 i 3.3800e- i 0.0000 i 139.3740 9 1 : 1 003 : I 003 : I I 003 I 1 003 I I Total 0.0727 0.2809 0.5464 2.3800e- 0.2017 1.3400e- 0.2031 0.0541 1.2500e- 0.0553 0.0000 220.1287 220.1287 7.7600e- 0.0000 220.3227 003 003 003 003 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •I 0.1035 i 0.7813 : 1.1713 i 1.9400e- i i 0.0363 i 0.0363 i i 0.0361 0.0361 •• 0.0000 i 167.0589 i 167.0589 i 0.0141 i 0.0000 1 167.4110 •1 I I 003 I I I I I I I 1 •9 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I - Total 0.1035 0.7813 1.1713 1.9400e- 0.0363 0.0363 0.0361 0.0361 0.0000 167.0589 167.0589 0.0141 0.0000 167.4110 SD CQ 003 CD al CP CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I ' Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 .1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , 1 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 I 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vendor -1 2.3900e- 1 0.0928 1 0.0198 1 3.3000e- 8.2000e- I 9.0000e- 1 8.2900e- 1 2.3700e- 1 9.0000e- ; 2.4500e- . 0.0000 1 31.8102 1 31.8102 1 1.7300e- 1 0.0000 1 31.8533 9 003 I 1 004 1 003 1 005 003 1 003 005 003 . 1 I 003 1 1 '1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J J J J J J J J •7 1 J J J T .1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Worker .1 0.0247 1 0.0166 1 0.1812 1 5.9000e- 1 0.0713 I 4.3000e- 1 0.0717 1 0.0189 1 4.0000e- ; 0.0193 : 0.0000 1 53.0917 1 53.0917 1 1.2100e- 1 0.0000 1 53.1221 .1 I I 1 004 1 1 004 1 I 1 004 . I I 1 003 1 1 •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 Total 0.0271 0.1094 0.2010 9.2000e- 0.0795 5.2000e- 0.0800 0.0213 4.9000e- 0.0218 0.0000 84.9019 84.9019 2.9400e- 0.0000 84.9754 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 : I I I I I 1 I I Off-Road .1 0.1035 1 0.7813 1.1713 1.9400e- 1 1 0.0363 1 0.0363 1 1 0.0361 : 0.0361 � 0.0000 1 167.0587 1 167.0587 1 0.0141 1 0.0000 i 167.4108 'I I I I 003 I I I I I I I I I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 - Total 0.1035 0.7813 1.1713 1.9400e- I 0.0363 0.0363 0.0361 0.0361 0.0000 167.0587 167.0587 0.0141 0.0000 167.4108 coID 003 CD Ol CA CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I I I ; J J J •.J J J J J I J J J T Vendor •i 2.3900e- i 0.0928 0.0198 i 3.3000e- i 8.2000e- : 9.0000e- i 8.2900e- : 2.3700e- i 9.0000e- 2.4500e- • 0.0000 i 31.8102 : 31.8102 i 1.7300e- i 0.0000 i 31.8533 9 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 1 ; J . J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker •i 0.0247 i 0.0166 0.1812 i 5.9000e- i 0.0713 1 4.3000e- i 0.0717 : 0.0189 i 4.0000e- 0.0193 .• 0.0000 i 53.0917 1 53.0917 i 1.2100e- i 0.0000 i 53.1221 •� I : 1 004 : I 004 I : I 004 I 1 003 I I Total 0.0271 0.1094 0.2010 9.2000e- 0.0795 5.2000e- 0.0800 0.0213 4.9000e- 0.0218 0.0000 84.9019 84.9019 2.9400e- 0.0000 84.9754 004 004 004 003 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 9.8800e- i 0.0953 : 0.1463 i 2.3000e- i i 4.6900e- i 4.6900e- i i 4.3100e- : 4.3100e- : 0.0000 20.0265 : 20.0265 i 6.4800e- i 0.0000 i 20.1885 •1 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 '� J J J J J J J J m J J J v Paving . 2.3600e- i I i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 c) 9 003 i I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CD0) Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1885 -.I004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I ' Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I 1 I I I J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I : Vendor •1 7.4000e- 1 0.0286 1 6.0900e- 11.000Oe- 1 2.5200e- 13.000Oe- 12.5500e- 1 7.3000e- 3.0000e- ; 7.5000e- i 0.0000 1 9.7878 1 9.7878 15.3000e- 0.0000 1 9.8010 :: 004 1 1 003 004 1 003 1 005 003 1 004 005 004 I 004 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 I 1 I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : Worker •1 1.5200e- 1 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 14.000Oe- 4.3900e- 13.000Oe- 14.4100e- 1 1.1600e- 12.000Oe- ; 1.1900e- i 0.0000 1 3.2672 1 3.2672 17.000Oe- 0.0000 1 3.2691 •1 003 1 003 1 005 003 1 005 003 1 003 005 003 1 I I 005 1 1 '1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 , 1 1 I I 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 Off-Road •1 9.8800e- 1 0.0953 1 0.1463 1 2.3000e- 1 14.6900e- 1 4.6900e- 1 1 4.3100e- : 4.3100e- � 0.0000 1 20.0265 20.0265 1 6.4800e- 1 0.0000 1 20.1884 •1 003 I I 1 004 1 I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . 1 I I 003 I 1 ;1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I J J J J J J J J v J J J t 11 '1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 : I I Paving •I 2.3600e- 1 1 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I o.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 cc) •1 003 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I • • I 1 I I 1 CDCD Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1884 Q p 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor •i 7.4000e- i 0.0286 : 6.0900e- i 1.0000e- i 2.5200e- : 3.0000e- i 2.5500e- : 7.3000e- i 3.0000e- 7.5000e- • 0.0000 i 9.7878 : 9.7878 i 5.3000e- i 0.0000 i 9.8010 •� 004 003 004 003 005 003 004 005 004 1 004 1 '� 1 1 • I 1 I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- : 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 i 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 003 : 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 9 0.8827 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J �ff-Road 91 7.2300e- i 0.0488 0.0724 i 1.2000e- i 2.4400e- i 2.4400e- I i 2.4400e- 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 i 5.8000e- i 0.0000 1 10.2274 u) 9 003 004 003 003 003 003 • 004 i 1 1 I 1 I I • I I 1 CD0) Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 004 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I II I I I I . I I I I ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- i 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 003 : : 005 1 003 : 005 : 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : 1 Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating •I 0.8827 i i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J �ff-Road 9i 7.2300e- i 0.0488 0.0724 i 1.2000e- i 2.4400e- i 2.4400e- i i 2.4400e- 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 i 5.8000e- i 0.0000 1 10.2274 u) 9 003 004 003 003 003 003 • 004 i CD1 1 I 1 I I I • I I I 1 N Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 0 004 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I II I I I I I I I I ; J J J •.J J J J J I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I ; J J J •.J J J J J I J J J T Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 i 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 003 : : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : 1 Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 9.8800e- i 0.0953 : 0.1463 i 2.3000e- i i 4.6900e- i 4.6900e- i i 4.3100e- : 4.3100e- : 0.0000 20.0265 : 20.0265 i 6.4800e- i 0.0000 i 20.1885 •1 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 '� J J J J J J J J m J J J v Paving ;� 2.3600e- i I i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 c) ., 003 i I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDN Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1885 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I ' Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I 1 I I I J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I : Vendor •1 7.4000e- 1 0.0286 1 6.0900e- 11.000Oe- 1 2.5200e- 13.000Oe- 12.5500e- 1 7.3000e- 3.0000e- ; 7.5000e- i 0.0000 1 9.7878 1 9.7878 15.3000e- 0.0000 1 9.8010 :: 004 1 1 003 004 1 003 1 005 003 1 004 005 004 I 004 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 I 1 I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : Worker •1 1.5200e- 1 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 14.000Oe- 4.3900e- 13.000Oe- 14.4100e- 1 1.1600e- 12.000Oe- ; 1.1900e- i 0.0000 1 3.2672 1 3.2672 17.000Oe- 0.0000 1 3.2691 •1 003 1 003 1 005 003 1 005 003 1 003 005 003 1 I I 005 1 1 '1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 , 1 1 I I 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 Off-Road •1 9.8800e- 1 0.0953 1 0.1463 1 2.3000e- 1 14.6900e- 1 4.6900e- 1 1 4.3100e- : 4.3100e- � 0.0000 1 20.0265 20.0265 1 6.4800e- 1 0.0000 1 20.1884 •I 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . 1 I I 003 I 1 -I 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I J J J J J J J J v J J J t 11 '1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 : I I Paving •I 2.3600e- 1 1 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I o.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 cc) •1 003 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I • • I 1 I I 1 CDN Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1884 N 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor •i 7.4000e- i 0.0286 : 6.0900e- i 1.0000e- i 2.5200e- : 3.0000e- i 2.5500e- : 7.3000e- i 3.0000e- 7.5000e- • 0.0000 i 9.7878 : 9.7878 i 5.3000e- i 0.0000 i 9.8010 •� 004 003 004 003 005 003 004 005 004 1 004 1 '� 1 1 • I 1 I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- : 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 i 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 003 : 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 9 0.8827 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J �ff-Road 91 7.2300e- i 0.0488 0.0724 i 1.2000e- i 2.4400e- i 2.4400e- I i 2.4400e- 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 i 5.8000e- i 0.0000 1 10.2274 u) 9 003 004 003 003 003 003 • 004 i 1 1 I 1 I I • I I 1 CDN Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 W 004 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I II I I I I . I I I I ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 i 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 003 : : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : 1 Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 9 0.8827 i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J �ff-Road 9i 7.2300e- i 0.0488 0.0724 i 1.2000e- i 2.4400e- i 2.4400e- I i 2.4400e- 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 i 5.8000e- i 0.0000 i 10.2274 9 003 004 003 003 003 003 • 004 i 1 1 I 1 I I I • I I I 1 CDN Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 004 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20___.1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I II I I I I . I I I I ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- i 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 003 : : 005 1 003 : 005 : 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : i Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile v u0 CD rn IV O1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 0.4455 i 3.0770 i 6.0309 i 0.0274 i 2.2695 i 0.0166 i 2.2862 i 0.6082 i 0.0155 : 0.6237 : 0.0000 i 2,543.694 i 2,543.694 i 0.1116 i 0.0000 i 2,546.483 '� I I I I I I I I I 3 3 I I 4 '1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Unmitigated • 0.4455 • 3.0770 • 6.0309 • 0.0274 • 2.2695 • 0.0166 • 2.2862 • 0.6082 • 0.0155 • 0.6237 • 0.0000 •2,543.694•2,543.694 • 0.1116 • 0.0000 •2,546.483 3 3 4 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,419.32 1,419.32 1419.32 5,631,294 • 5,631,294 City Park ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y Parking Lot + 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y f Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall ; 83.03 ; 83.03 83.03 • 329,439 329,439 Total I 1,502.35 I 1,502.35 1,502.35 I 5,960,733 I 5,960,733 44 Trip Type Information (0 CD 0) IV a) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.90 10.90 : 10.90 40.00 20.00 40.00 100 • 0 0 T City Park ;• 16.60 8.40 I 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 •T 19.00 • 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse 14.70 I 5.90 ? 8.70 40.00 20.00 T 40.00 •• 100 •• 0 • 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator:▪ 16.60 1 8.40 : 6.90 i 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 7 33.00 48.00 T• • • •19.00 • 77 • 19 4 Parking Lot ;▪ 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool ;• 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 33.00 48.00 : 19.00 • 52 •• 39 9 • 4 r • Strip Mall • 10.90 • 10.90 10.90 • 16.60 64.40 • 19.00 • 100 • 0 : 0 • 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 LDT2 I MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303 i 0.181800: 0.111169 i 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365: 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i i i + City Park • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745T 0.035303: 0.181800 i 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365 i 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + General Office Building • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745; 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N v 5< Mitigation Measures Energy N v CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity •i 1 1 i 1 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 575.0523 : 575.0523 i 0.0265 i 5.4800e- 1 577.3461 Mitigated :1 I I I I I I I I ■ II I I I 003 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I . 1 I I • .1 1I'IElectricity •1 i i i 1 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 575.0523 : 575.0523 : 0.0265 : 5.4800e- : 577.3461 Unmitigated :: I I I I I I I I ■ I I I 003 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I . I I I el • J J J NaturalGas •1 0.0209 i 0.1788 : 0.0766 : 1.1400e- : : 0.0145 : 0.0145 : : 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 i 206.9847 : 206.9847 : 3.9700e- : 3.7900e- : 208.2147 Mitigated :1 1 I : 003 : I I I I 1 I : 003 : 003 1 a 1 } } } } } } } } r 1 } } I. NaturalGas •• 0.0209 • 0.1788 • 0.0766 • 1.1400e- • • 0.0145 • 0.0145 • • 0.0145 • 0.0145 • 0.0000 • 206.9847 • 206.9847 • 3.9700e- • 3.7900e- • 208.2147 Unmitigated 003 003 003 N e0 CD CD N co CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 45 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid i 3.83167e•1 0.0207 0.1766 I 0.0751 11.1300e- I I 0.0143 I 0.0143 1 1 0.0143 0.0143 : 0.0000 1 204.4723 1 204.4723 13.9200e- 13.7500e- i 205.6874 Rise I +006 ;i i I 003 I i 1 i I 003 I 003 I t41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 : : : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I ••I 1 I I I I I I I . . I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous 122663.5 •1 1.2000e- 11.0400e- 14.4000e- 11.00OOe- I 18.00OOe- 18.00OOe- I 18.00OOe- 8.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 1.2094 I 1.2094 12.00OOe- 12.00OOe- 1 1.2166 e I ;1 004 003 1 004 005 1 I 005 I 005 I 005 005 . 1 I 1 005 1 005 1 .I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 , I I I I r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 : : : : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator I ; I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office I 17003 .1 9.00OOe- 18.3000e- 17.00OOe- 11.00OOe- I 16.00OOe- 16.00OOe- I 16.00OOe- 6.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 0.9073 I 0.9073 12.00OOe- 12.00OOe- 1 0.9127 Building I ;: 005 004 1 004 005 1 I 005 I 005 I 005 005 . i I I I • 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 005 I 005 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot I 0 .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I .•I I I I I I I I I . . I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; I I I I I I I I I I I 1Swimming Pool I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall 1 7412.58 .1 4.00OOe- 13.6000e- 13.1000e- I 0.0000 I 1 3.00OOe- 13.00OOe- I 13.00OOe- 3.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 0.3956 I 0.3956 11.00OOe- 11.00OOe- 1 0.3979 I •1 005 1 004 1 004 1 I 005 I 005 I 005 005 . I I 1 005 1 005 1 9 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I Total 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1500e- 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 206.9846 206.9846 3.9700e- 3.8000e- 208.2147 003 003 003 N CD CD tV co CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 46 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid i 3.83167e•1 0.0207 1 0.1766 1 0.0751 1 1.1300e- 1 1 0.0143 1 0.0143 1 1 0.0143 0.0143 : 0.0000 1 204.4723 1 204.4723 1 3.9200e- 1 3.7500e- i 205.6874 Rise I +006 ;i i I 003 I i 1 1 I 003 I 003 I t41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 : : : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I ••I 1 I I I I I I I . . I 1 I I 1 r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous I 22663.5 .1 1.2000e- 1.0400e- 1 4.4000e- 1 1.00OOe- 1 1 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 1 1 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 1.2094 1 1.2094 1 2.00OOe- 1 2.00OOe- i 1.2166 e I ;1 004 1 003 I 004 1 005 I I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 I 1 005 I 005 1 1 .I I I I I 1 1 1 I . I I I I r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking I 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office I 17003 .1 9.00OOe- 8.3000e- 1 7.00OOe- 1 1.00OOe- 1 1 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 1 1 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 0.9073 1 0.9073 1 2.00OOe- 1 2.00OOe- i 0.9127 Building I ;: 005 I 004 1 004 1 005 I I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 . i I 1 I 1 • I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 005 I 005 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I ••1 I I I I I I I I . . I 1 I I 1 r 41 J J J J J ., I J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; I I I I I I I I I I I 1Swimming Pool I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 111 I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall 1 7412.58 .1 4.00OOe- 3.6000e- 1 3.1000e- 1 0.0000 1 1 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 1 1 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 0.3956 1 0.3956 1 1.00OOe- 1 1.00OOe- i 0.3979 I •1 005 I 004 I 004 1 I I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 I I 1 005 I 005 1 1 9 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Total 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1500e- 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 206.9846 206.9846 3.9700e- 3.8000e- 208.2147 003 003 003 N CD CD CO 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 47 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr I Apartments Mid 1 1.18304e.1 338.0684 1 0.0156 1 3.2200e- i 339.4169 Rise i +006 ;i I 003 I 1 .1 1 City Park 1• 0 :i 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 . 1 1 I J Condo/Townhous 1 5642.06•i 1.6123 : 7.0000e- 12.0000e- i 1.6187 e I ;1 : 005 : 005 i i .i i i Enclosed Parking 1 703200 •i 200.9487 : 9.2500e- I 1.9100e- 1 201.7502 with Elevator I :1 003 003 i .i i i General Office i 46648 •i 13.3303 : 6.1000e- I 1.3000e- i 13.3835 Building i ;1 : 004 : 004 i i .i i Parking Lot 1• 31640 •i 9.0416 1 4.2000e- 19.0000e- : 9.0776 I :1 1 004 : 005 i .i i Recreational i 0 •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool i ;i 1 i i .i i i i Strip Mall 1• 42171.6•i 12.0511 1 5.5000e- 11.1000e- i 12.0992 �1 : 004 : 004 1 Total 575.0523 0.0265 5.4800e- 577.3461 003 0) to Cr; CD W CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 48 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr I Apartments Mid 1 1.18304e•i 338.0684 1 0.0156 1 3.2200e- i 339.4169 Rise i +006 ;i I 003 I 1 .1 1 City Park 1• 0 :i 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 .� 1 1 J Condo/Townhous i 5642.06•i 1.6123 : 7.0000e- 12.0000e- i 1.6187 e I ;1 : 005 : 005 i i .i i i Enclosed Parking 1 703200 •i 200.9487 : 9.2500e- I 1.9100e- : 201.7502 with Elevator 1 :1 003 003 i .i i i General Office i 46648 •i 13.3303 : 6.1000e- I 1.3000e- i 13.3835 Building i ;1 : 004 : 004 i i .i i Parking Lot 1• 31640 •i 9.0416 1 4.2000e- 19.0000e- : 9.0776 :1 1 004 : 005 I .1 I Recreational i 0 •i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool I ;i 1 i 1 .1 1 Strip Mall 1• 42171.6•i 12.0511 1 5.5000e- 11.1000e- i 12.0992 �1 : 004 : 004 1 Total 575.0523 0.0265 5.4800e- 577.3461 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.-t Mitigation Measures Area 0) CO CD CS) co N) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 49 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 1.1609 i 0.0849 : 2.7100 i 4.9000e- i i 0.0192 i 0.0192 i i 0.0192 : 0.0192 : 0.0000 i 66.8289 : 66.8289 i 5.4300e- : 1.1400e- 1 67.3059 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 003 j 91 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 Unmitigated 1.1609 • 0.0849 • 2.7100 . 4.9000e- • • 0.0192 • 0.0192 • . 0.0192 • 0.0192 • 0.0000 • 66.8289 • 66.8289 • 5.4300e- • 1.1400e- • 67.3059 004 003 003 , 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural . 0.0883 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating .I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I i J J J Consumer 9 0.9851 1 1 1 1 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products I I I I I I I I . I I I I '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 i `i Hearth 9 6.3100e- 1 0.0539 : 0.0229 i 3.4000e- : : 4.3600e- : 4.3600e- : i 4.3600e- 4.3600e- • 0.0000 i 62.4357 : 62.4357 : 1.2000e- : 1.1400e- 1 62.8067 9� 0031 004 003 I 003 003 003 . 1 I 003 I 003 I _CO 'i J J J J J J J J Landscaping 9 0.0812 1 0.0309 : 2.6871 i 1.4000e- : : 0.0149 : 0.0149 : i 0.0149 0.0149 : 0.0000 i 4.3933 : 4.3933 : 4.2400e- : 0.0000 i 4.4992 9 I : 004 1 I I I I : . I : 003 : 1 91 1 1 . 1 i W Total 1.1609 0.0849 2.7100 4.8000e- 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 66.8289 66.8289 5.4400e- 1.1400e- 67.3059 004 003 003 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 50 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG LNOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0883 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J V I J J J I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Consumer •1 0.9851 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products :: 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 1 I 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 ; J J J J J J J J V I J J J I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Hearth .1 6.3100e- 1 0.0539 1 0.0229 1 3.4000e- 1 4.3600e- 1 4.3600e- 1 1 4.3600e- 4.3600e- . 0.0000 1 62.4357 1 62.4357 1 1.2000e- 1 1.1400e- i 62.8067 9 003 I I 1 004 I 1 003 I 003 : I 003 003 I I )03 : 003.1 1 1 1 �I J J J J J J J J : I J J J I 1 : : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Landscaping .1 0.0812 1 0.0309 1 2.6871 1.4000e- 1 0.0149 1 0.0149 1 1 0.0149 0.0149 . 0.0000 1 4.3933 1 4.3933 1 4.2400e- 1 0.0000 i 4.4992 .1 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 1 '1 1 I I I I 1 I I . I 1 1 I 1 Total 1.1609 0.0849 2.7100 4.8000e- 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 66.8289 66.8289 5.4400e- 1.1400e- 67.3059 004 003 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water -o v CD O) CO CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 51 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •i 111.2350 i 0.6110 0.0153 i 131.0754 Unmitigated 111.2350 • 0.6110 • 0.0153 : 131.0754 N CD rn W 01 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 52 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 1 16.94/ •i 102.3128 1 0.5565 i 0.0140 1 120.3833 Rise I 10.6796 ; .1 1 1 J City Park 1 0/ •1 1.2483 1 6.0000e- 11.0000e- 1 1.2533 10.393189:: 1 005 1 005 i .1 1 Condo/Townhous i 0.065154/•i 0.3935 1 2.1400e- 1 5.0000e- i 0.4630 e i 0.0410754;i 1 003 1 005 i I .l J Enclosed Parking 1 0/0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator .1 1 1 J General Office i 1.35078/•1 5.4547 1 0.0443 1 1.0900e- 1 6.8848 Building i 0 :: I 003 i 1 I .l J Parking Lot 1 0/0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I .l J Recreational 1 0/ •1 0.3453 1 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.3466 Swimming Pool i 0.108747;i 1 005 1 i .1 1 Strip Mall [0.247402/•i 1.4805 1 8.1300e- 1 2.0000e- i 1.7443 i 0.151634;i 1 003 1 004 i I . I I 1 Total 111.2350 0.6111 0.0153 131.0754 0) co Cr; CD W rn CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 53 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 1 16.94/ •i 102.3128 1 0.5565 i 0.0140 1 120.3833 Rise I 10.6796 ; .1 1 1 J City Park 1 0/ •1 1.2483 1 6.0000e- 11.0000e- 1 1.2533 10.393189:: 1 005 1 005 i i .l i i Condo/Townhous 13.065154/•i 0.3935 1 2.1400e- 1 5.0000e- i 0.4630 e 10.0410754:: I 003 I 005 1 I .l J Enclosed Parking 1 0/0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator .1 1 1 J General Office 1 1.35078/•1 5.4547 1 0.0443 1 1.0900e- 1 6.8848 Building i 0 :: 1 003 i .� 1 J Parking Lot 1 0/0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I .l J Recreational 1 0/ •1 0.3453 1 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.3466 Swimming Pool i 0.108747;i 1 005 1 i .1 1 Strip Mall 13.247402/•i 1.4805 1 8.1300e- 1 2.0000e- 1 1.7443 0.151634;i I 003 I 004 I . I I 1 Total 111.2350 0.6111 0.0153 131.0754 8.0 Waste Detail 80 Mitigation Measures Waste CD rn w CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 54 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 118.5467 i 7.0059 i 0.0000 i 293.6945 Unmitigated •• 118.5467 : 7.0059 • 0.0000 : 293.6945 CCD CD G) CO CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 55 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid 1 555.83 •i 112.8285 1 6.6680 i 0.0000 1 279.5278 Rise i ;i I I I •l J City Park 1 0.03 •1 6.0900e- 13.6000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.0151 ;i 003 I 004 l I 1 J Condo/Townhous i 0.46 •1 0.0934 1 5.5200e- 1 0.0000 1 0.2313 e i ;i 003 1 I •l J Enclosed Parking 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator ▪l 1 1 J General Office i 7.07 •1 1.4352 1 0.0848 1 0.0000 1 3.5555 Building i • i 1 •l J Parking Lot 1 0 •: 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 J Recreational i 17.1 •1 3.4712 1 0.2051 1 0.0000 1 8.5996 Swimming Pool 1 •▪1 i I •l J Strip Mall 1 3.51 .1 0.7125 : 0.0421 1 0.0000 1 1.7652 •' 1 i Total 118.5467 7.0059 0.0000 293.6945 B) co CD CD W (C CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 56 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid i 555.83 •i 112.8285 : 6.6680 i 0.0000 1279.5278 Rise 1 •1 1 1 7l J J T City Park : 0.03 •i 6.0900e- : 3.6000e- i 0.0000 : 0.0151 ;i 003 I 004 -el J T Condo/Townhous i 0.46 •i 0.0934 : 5.5200e- i 0.0000 i 0.2313 e I ;i : 003 -el J J T Enclosed Parking : 0 •i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator I ; J J General Office i 7.07 •i 1.4352 : 0.0848 i 0.0000 i 3.5555 Building i ; I 7l J J T Parking Lot i 0 :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 J J Recreational I 17.1 •i 3.4712 : 0.2051 i 0.0000 i 8.5996 Swimming Pool I ; 7l J J T Strip Mall i 3.51 •i 0.7125 : 0.0421 i 0.0000 i 1.7652 Total 118.5467 7.0059 0.0000 293.6945 9.0 Operational Offroad IEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type cP 0) 0 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 57 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation v CD C) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 7.60 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 T 4,900.00 i 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 300.00 + Space ; 0.00 120,000.00 + 0 Parking Lot 226.00 + Space ; 1.80 90,400.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,374.80 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.07 3,000.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 259,000.00 + 741 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 r r + I- Strip Mall 3.34 1000sgft 0.00 3,339.00 0 • • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) v co 1 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data N Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor" Land Use - See SWAPE comments on "Failure to Model Required Amount of Parking" and "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Us Enclosed Parking= 57% of total, Parking Lot=43% of total parking. CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Construction Phase-Consistent with IS/MND's model Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Architectural Coating -See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Woodstoves -Woodstoves: consistent with IS/MND's model. Fireplaces: See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values" Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Energy Use- Water And Wastewater- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Solid Waste Generation Rates" Total adds up to 584 tons/year C(°rhstruction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces • FireplaceWoodMass } 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces Y FireplaceWoodMass + T 1,019.20 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 220.15 259.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 0.85 T 1.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 25.90 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 0.10 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 12.95 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 0.05 T 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 60.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 45.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 24.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 12.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 21,180.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 7,600.00 T 4,900.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 1,000.00 T 1,570.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 3,340.00 T 3,339.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.17 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.70 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.03 T 1.80 m tblLandUse LotAcreage + 6.82 T 3.00 c tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.06 T 0.00 cs) tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.08 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount + 1.00 T 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 4 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblOffRoadEquipment i OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 3.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor * 702.44 630 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 119.14 555.83 t • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber * 2,648.00 2,880.00 CD 4 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber * 1,324.00 1,440.00 v' tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 66.00 40.00 4 4 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber • 66.00 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber ,i 15.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 57.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips CC_TL ,i 8.40 10.90 r • tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL f 6.90 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips CW_TL * 16.60 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 40.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL * 8.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TL * 5.90 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips CD Y HS_TTP * 19.20 T 20.00 tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP * 19.20 20.00 rn tblVehicleTrips HW_TL * 14.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP * 40.20 40.00 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 6 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PB_TP f 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP ,i 15.00 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 45.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 6.39 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 22.75 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 5.67 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 2.46 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 9.10 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 42.04 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR ,i 5.86 5.48 r • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR f 16.74 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 4.84 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 1.05 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 13.60 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 20.43 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 6.65 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 1.89 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 5.81 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 11.03 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips Y WD_TR * 33.82 Ttv 0.00 CD tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 44.32 24.86 v tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 16,874,892.64 16,940,046.66 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 177,429.43 0.00 4 4 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate • 10,638,519.27 10,679,594.63 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 827,895.26 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic f 12.95 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic • ,i 0.05 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 12.95 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 0.05 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass r 999.60 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary v CD CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Year lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 2022 •i 4.9826 1 82.5898 1 46.0429 1 0.2561 1 8.2717 1 1.6581 1 9.5368 1 1.8114 1 1.6363 2.9810 : 0.0000 i 26,896.46 1 26,896.46 1 2.2163 1 0.0000 i 26,951.87 •1 I I I I I I I I 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I • 1 57 i 57 1 i 40 :I J J J J J J J J I J J J T 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2023 •1 4.6469 1 32.2831 1 45.2356 1 0.0955 1 2.4917 1 1.4464 1 3.9381 1 0.6666 1 1.4268 2.0935 0.0000 1 9,283.061 1 9,283.061 1 0.7593 1 0.0000 i 9,302.045 9 I I I I I I I 1 , 1 8 I 8 1 I I 2 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I I 1 1 :1 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2024 •1 89.1573 1 27.3471 1 43.1163 1 0.0898 1 2.4917 1 1.1320 1 3.6237 1 0.6666 1 1.1243 1.7909 0.0000 1 8,726.729 1 8,726.729 1 0.7790 1 0.0000 i 8,741.208 •1 I I I I I I I I . 1 7 I 7 1 I 1 4 •1 I 1 I 1 I I I I , . 1 I I I 1 Maximum 89.1573 82.5898 46.0429 0.2561 8.2717 1.6581 9.5368 1.8114 1.6363 2.9810 0.0000 26,896.46 26,896.46 2.2163 0.0000 26,951.87 11 57 57 40 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2 5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 2022 •1 4.9826 82.5898 1 46.0429 1 0.2561 1 8.2717 1 1.6581 1 9.5368 1 1.8114 1 1.6363 2.9810 : 0.0000 l 26,896.46 1 26,896.46 1 2.2163 1 0.0000 i 26,951.87 9 1 I I I I I I I • 1 57 1 57 1 I 1 40 '1 I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I 1 '1 '1 J J J J J J J J .. I J J J -1.I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 - 2023 •1 4.6469 1 32.2831 45.2356 1 0.0955 1 2.4917 1 1.4464 1 3.9381 0.6666 1 1.4268 2.0935 : 0.0000 I9,283.06119,283.0611 0.7593 0.0000 :9,302.045 co 9 1 1 I I I I I I , • 1 8 I 8 I I I 2 'I 1 I I I I I I I , 1 1 1 I 1 'l i i i i i i i i • I i J J rn 2024 9 89.1573 1 27.3471 1 43.1163 1 0.0898 I 2.4917 1 1.1320 1 3.6237 1 0.6666 1 1.1243 ; 1.7909 • 0.0000 1 8,726.729 1 8,726.729 1 0.7790 1 0.0000 i 8,741.208 ;� 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I • 7 7 I 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 Maximum 89.1573 82.5898 46.0429 0.2561 8.2717 1.6581 9.5368 1.8114 1.6363 2.9810 0.0000 26,896.46 26,896.46 2.2163 0.0000 26,951.87 57 57 40 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG1 NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 0.) cn 01 O CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I : I 1 1 I 1 1 Area •i 7.0358 1 4.5605 1 23.3317 1 0.0287 1 0.4677 1 0.4677 1 1 0.4677 0.4677 � 0.0000 1 5,544.624 1 5,544.624 1 0.1429 I 0.1009 i 5,578.277 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 2 I 2 I I 1 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �1 J J J J J J J J V I J J J T 1 I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 1 Energy •1 0.1146 1 0.9797 1 0.4196 1 6.2500e- 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 0.0792 � 1 1,250.200 1 1,250.200 1 0.0240 I 0.0229 : 1,257.629 '1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I . 1 1 I 1 I I I 4 '1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 . I I I 1 1 �1 J J J J J J J J V I J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 Mobile .1 2.8630 1 16.4952 1 37.0284 1 0.1600 1 12.7073 1 0.0913 1 12.7986 1 3.3998 1 0.0851 3.4849 � 1 16,342.15 1 16,342.15 1 0.6809 I i 16,359.17 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 46 46 1 I 74 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 i Total 10.0134 22.0354 60.7797 0.1949 12.7073 0.6382 13.3455 3.3998 0.6320 4.0318 0.0000 23,136.97 23,136.97 0.8478 0.1239 23,195.08 89 89 40 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I : I 1 1 I I I I Area •1 7.0358 1 4.5605 1 23.3317 1 0.0287 1 0.4677 1 0.4677 1 1 0.4677 0.4677 0.0000 5,544.624 1 5,544.624 1 0.1429 1 0.1009 i 5,578.277 ■1 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I 1 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . • I I I 1 •1 J J J J J J J J J J J Energy •1 0.1146 1 0.9797 I 0.4196 1 6.2500e- 1 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 : 0.0792 • 1,250.20011,250.2001 0.0240 1 0.0229 11,257.629 •1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 . 1 1 I •1 I I I 003 I I I I I ■ 1 I 1 I I I 4 CD •1 I I I 1 I I I I • 1 I I I J J J J J J J J • J J J I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1. 0) Mobile •i 2.8630 1 16.4952 1 37.0284 1 0.1600 1 12.7073 1 0.0913 1 12.7986 1 3.3998 1 0.0851 3.4849 16,342.15 1 16,342.15 1 0.6809 1 i 16,359.17 cri •1 I I I I I I I I ■ 46 I 46 I I I 74 I 1 I I I I I I , . 1 I I 1 Total 10.0134 22.0354 60.7797 0.1949 12.7073 0.6382 13.3455 3.3998 0.6320 4.0318 0.0000 23,136.97 23,136.97 0.8478 0.1239 23,195.08 89 89 40 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 -Demolition !▪Demolition 13/5/2022 :4/1/2022 1 5: 20: , , 2 :Site Preparation :Grading I4/30/2022 :5/27/2022 1 51 20: + I , I . i , , 3 -Trenching/Utilites-East Building Site Preparation 14/2/2022 14/15/2022 1 51 10: , , 4 :Construction-East Building :Building Construction 16/25/2022 15/12/2023 1 51 230: + I , I . i , , 5 -Grading :Grading I5/28/2022 16/24/2022 1 51 20 : , , 6 -Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation 14/16/2022 14/29/2022 1 51 10: + I , I . i , , 7 :Construction-West Building :Building Construction I5/13/2023 13/29/2024 1 51 230 , , 8 -Paving-East Building :Paying 13/30/2024 :4/26/2024 1 51 20: + I , I I i , , 9 :Architectural Coatings East Bldg :Architectural Coating I5/25/2024 :6/21/2024 1 51 20: : , , 10 -Paving-West Building :Paying 14/27/2024 :5/24/2024 1 51 20: + 1 I 1 1 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:A▪ rchitectural Coating .6/22/2024 :7/19/2024 5: 20 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 0) Ares of Paving: 1.8 rn e, Rb idential Indoor: 527,654; Residential Outdoor: 175,885; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,359; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,120; Striped Parking Area: 12,624 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 11 8.00 81: 0.73 Demolition Excavators ; 1 B.00! 158' 0.38 --+ Demolition Generator Sets ; 2; 4.001 84' 0.74 Demolition Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 2; B.00! 247' 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00i 212' 0.43 --+ Site Preparation Excavators ; 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 --+ Site Preparation Graders ; 1! 8.001 187' 0.41 --4- Site Preparation Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --4- Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --4- Site Preparation +Scrapers ; 1! B.00! 367' 0.48 Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00i 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilites-East Building Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building Excavators ; 1! 8.001 158' 0.38 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 Construction-East Building !Air Compressors ; 10! 8.001 78' 0.48 --.- Construction-East Building +Cranes ; 1! 7.00i 231' 0.29 Construction-East Building Forklifts ; 0 8.00i 89' 0.20 _ Construction-East Building Generator Sets ; 2 8.00i 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-East Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --+ Cgstruction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 ca --.- C astruction-East Building :Welders : 0; 8.O01 46' 0.45 •-cm ,- - - --4 GKailing Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 �_ _ _ Grading :Excavators ; 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 * i- Grading :Graders 1: 8.00' 187: 0.41 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • Grading •Rollers 2i 8.00• 80• 0.38 Grading Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0 8.001 247: 0.40 _ Grading Scrapers ; 1! 8.001 367' 0.48 --4- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 8.00197' 0.37 Trenching/Utilities-West Building Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.001 212' 0.43 Trenching/Utilities-West Building Excavators ; 1 8.001 158' 0.38 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --4- Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 --+ Construction-West Building +Air Compressors ; 10! 8.001 78' 0.48 --+ Construction-West Building :Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --+ Construction-West Building Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --+ Construction-West Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-West Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --+ Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 --+ Construction-West Building Welders ; 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 Paving-East Building +Pavers ; 2; 8.00 130' 0.42 Paving-East Building Paving Equipment ; 2 8.00 132' 0.36 a _ Paving-East Building :Rollers ; 2 8.00180' 0.38 Architectural Coatings East Bldg !Air Compressors ; 4; 6.001 78' 0.48 --+ Paving-West Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --+ Paving-West Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 Ping-West Building +Rollers ; 2; 8.00 80' 0.38 ._ccz ' * F Ar�itectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 4' 6.00' 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 40.001 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT ' I I I ' J Site Preparation 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00;-LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT 1 I I ' J Trenching/Utilites- 6; 40.00. 0.001 2,880.001 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:-LD_Mix .HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+Q„;I.+;nn £ • I I I I j Construction-East i 15: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q„;I.J;nn , I I I I J -i n - T Grading 6; 40.001 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix �HDT_Mix HHDT ' 1 I I ' J -1 n - T Trenching/Utilities- 6: 40.001 0.00 i 1,440.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix HHDT U/1,c+Q,dlrlinn. I I I I I Construction-West i 14: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q„;I.J;nn , I I I I j Paving-East Building 's 6; 40.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT ' 1 I I ' J Architectural Coatings 4; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+DI,I, • I I I I J Paving-West Building; 6: 40.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT 1 1 , : I i r I- r * - -- T + T Architectural Coatings : 4' 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix 'HHDT \Nnc+1:21,-1n 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day v rn (p ' I I I 1 1 I 1 1 • ' I I I i Off-Road •1 2.5643 1 25.0937 1 17.7597 1 0.0351 1 1 1.2177 1 1.2177 1 1 1.1441 1.1441 • 13,369.78513,369.7851 0.7586 1 13,388.750 'I I I I I I I I I • 1 2 I 2 I I 1 3 U1 '1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Hi . Total 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day ;r I I I I I I I 1 I 1 Hauling 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I I 1 I I 1 I 1 : I : I 1 T Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I I 1 I I 1 I 1 : I 1 I 1 T Worker 9 0.1898 1 0.1130 1 1.5212 1 4.2400e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 1 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 1 421.8410 1 421.8410 I 0.0112 1 1422.1203 -I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I 1 I I I I Off-Road .1 2.5643 1 25.0937 1 17.7597 1 0.0351 1 1 1.2177 1 1.2177 1 i 1.1441 : 1.1441 : 0.0000 1 3,369.785 1 3,369.785 1 0.7586 1 i 3,388.750 -1 1 I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I 1 1 3 9 1 I I I I I I I , ; I 1 I I 1 I13 Total 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 0.0000 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 (C) 2 2 3 CD 6) Cn a) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i 1 422.1203 9 003 1 003 1 I 003 I I I I 1 Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 I 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust �i i i i i 3.1815 : 0.0000 i 3.1815 : 0.3435 i 0.0000 : 0.3435 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J 01 Road 9i 2.5506 i 29.6686 16.4479 i 0.0427 i 1.1687 i 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 • 4,137.845 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 9 I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 '� I I I I I . I I 1 CD Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 cri -.I2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i 1 422.1203 9 003 1 003 1 I 003 I I I I 1 Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 I 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i i i i 3.1815 : 0.0000 i 3.1815 : 0.3435 i 0.0000 : 0.3435 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J 01 Road 9i 2.5506 i 29.6686 16.4479 i 0.0427 i 1.1687 i 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 • 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 9 I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDTotal 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 Cocri 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i 1 422.1203 9 003 1 003 1 I 003 I I I I 1 Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 I 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 i 2.7847 : 0.3111 i 0.0000 : 0.3111 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9i 2.0787 i 22.2277 15.3206 i 0.0307 i : 1.1084 i 1.1084 i 1.0197 1.0197 • 2,973.217 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDTotal 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 CO 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 1.6178 i 60.2492 9.8639 i 0.2212 i 5.0399 1 0.1540 i 5.1938 1.3817 i 0.1473 1.5290 i 23,501.40 23,501.40 i 1.2436 i i 23,532.49 9 I I I I I I I •� I I I I I I I . 69 I I I 69 i 59 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 1 2.7800e- i 0.4499 : 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i i 422.1203 '� 003 003 003 I I I I 1 Total 1.8076 60.3621 11.3851 0.2254 5.4870 0.1568 5.6437 1.5003 0.1499 1.6502 23,923.24 23,923.24 1.2547 79 79 23,954.61 62 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 i 2.7847 : 0.3111 i 0.0000 : 0.3111 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9i 2.0787 i 22.2277 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 i 1.0197 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I • 8 I 8 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I . I I I CD0) Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 0 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 1.6178 i 60.2492 : 9.8639 i 0.2212 i 5.0399 1 0.1540 i 5.1938 : 1.3817 i 0.1473 1.5290 � i 23,501.40:23,501.40 i 1.2436 i i 23,532.49 '� I I I I I I I I •� I I I I I I I . I 69 I 69 I I i 59 ,� • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 9 . 1 I I ,� • J J J T Worker •i 0.1898 i 0.1130 1 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 1 2.7800e- i 0.4499 : 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i 1422.1203 9 : I 1 003 1 I 003 : I I 003 1 1 I 9 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 Total 1.8076 60.3621 11.3851 0.2254 5.4870 0.1568 5.6437 1.5003 0.1499 1.6502 23,923.24 23,923.24 1.2547 23,954.61 79 79 62 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road .i 3.9372 i 31.2581 i 37.7657 i 0.0647 i i 1.6386 i 1.6386 i i 1.6182 : 1.6182 . i 6,155.195:6,155.195 i 0.6776 i i 6,172.134 I I I I I I I I , 3 I 3 I I 1 1 '� I I I I I I I I I 1 I I - Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 CQ 3 3 1 CD 0) O) 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 1 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0964 i 3.6585 0.6711 i 0.0107 i 0.2562 1 5.5600e- i 0.2617 : 0.0738 i 5.3100e- 0.0791 • 11,129.230: 1,129.230 : 0.0695 i i 1,130.966 9003 : 003 1 3 3 i 6 9 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker •i 0.9490 i 0.5648 7.6061 i 0.0212 i 2.2355 1 0.0139 i 2.2494 : 0.5929 i 0.0128 0.6057 • 1 2,109.204:2,109.204 i 0.0559 i i 2,110.601 9 i i i i I i I i i i i 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 i 8 I I Total 1.0454 4.2232 8.2772 0.0319 2.4917 0.0194 2.5112 0.6666 0.0181 0.6847 I 3,238.435 3,238.435 0.1253 3,241.567 2 2 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 3.9372 i 31.2581 i 37.7657 i 0.0647 i i 1.6386 i 1.6386 i i 1.6182 1.6182 • 0.0000 i 6,155.195 6,155.195 i 0.6776 i 1 6,172.134 I I I I I I I . 3 3 I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I - Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 0.0000 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 SD CQ 3 3 1 CD 0) O) IV CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 1 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0964 i 3.6585 0.6711 i 0.0107 i 0.2562 1 5.5600e- i 0.2617 : 0.0738 i 5.3100e- 0.0791 • 11,129.230: 1,129.230 : 0.0695 i i 1,130.966 9003 : 003 1 3 3 i 6 9 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker •i 0.9490 i 0.5648 7.6061 i 0.0212 i 2.2355 1 0.0139 i 2.2494 : 0.5929 i 0.0128 0.6057 • 1 2,109.204:2,109.204 i 0.0559 i i 2,110.601 9 i i i i I i I I i i i 4 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 i 8 I I Total 1.0454 4.2232 8.2772 0.0319 2.4917 0.0194 2.5112 0.6666 0.0181 0.6847 I 3,238.435 3,238.435 0.1253 3,241.567 2 2 9 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 Off-Road •i 3.6862 i 28.9417 i 37.6666 i 0.0647 i i 1.4301 i 1.4301 1 i 1.4118 1.4118 • I 6,155.283 6,155.283 i 0.6534 i i 6,171.618 I I I I I I I . 5 I 5 I I 1 2 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I - Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 SD CQ 5 5 2 CD 0) O) Ca) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J : I J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Vendor •1 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 I 2.7300e- I 0.2589 I 0.0738 1 2.6100e- ; 0.0764 • 1 1,097.877 11,097.877 1 0.0559 1 11,099.276 •1 1 I I I 1 003 I I I 003 1 9 1 9 1 I I 3 '1 I I I I I I 1 1 , . I I I 1 1 J J J J J J J J . I J J J T 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Worker •1 0.8878 1 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 1 2.2355 I 0.0135 1 2.2490 I 0.5929 1 0.0124 ; 0.6053 • 12,029.90012,029.9001 0.0500 1 I 2,031.150 '1 I I I I I I I I ; 1 4 I 4 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I Off-Road •i 3.6862 28.9417 1 37.6666 1 0.0647 1 1 1.4301 1 1.4301 1 1 1.4118 : 1.4118 0.0000 i 6,155.283 1 6,155.283 1 0.6534 1 i 6,171.618 I I I I I I I I 5 I 5 I I 1 2 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I I 1 - Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 0.0000 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 SD (Q 5 5 2 CD Ol 0) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building -2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J : I J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Vendor •1 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- ; 0.0764 • 1 1,097.877 1 1,097.877 1 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 •1 1 I I I 1 003 I I I 003 1 9 1 9 1 I I 3 '1 I I I I I I 1 1 , . I 1 I 1 1 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Worker •1 0.8878 1 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 1 2.2355 I 0.0135 1 2.2490 I 0.5929 1 0.0124 ; 0.6053 • 12,029.90012,029.9001 0.0500 1 I 2,031.150 '1 I I I I I I I I ; 1 4 1 4 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 2.3861 1 0.0000 1 2.3861 1 0.2577 1 0.0000 : 0.2577 i 1 0.0000 I 1 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I I ' I• 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 •1 J J J J J J J J I J J J t '1 I I I I I I 1 : I : I I 7bff-Road •I 2.5506 1 29.6686 1 16.4479 I 0.0427 I 1 1.1687 1 1.1687 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 1 4,137.845 4,137.845 1 1.3383 1 !4,171.301 '1 I I I I I I I I ; I 2 I 2 I I i 8 N '1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I I a) Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 rs 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J + Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i 1 422.1203 9 003 003 003 I I I 1 1 Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 I 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust :i i i i i 2.3861 i 0.0000 i 2.3861 i 0.2577 i 0.0000 : 0.2577 ••• i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 16.4479 i 0.0427 i 1.1687 i 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 • 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 9 I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 '�CD I I I I I I I . I I I 1 Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 0) 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i 1 422.1203 9 003 1 003 1 I 003 I I I I 1 Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 I 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i i i 1.3924 : 0.0000 i 1.3924 : 0.1556 i 0.0000 : 0.1556 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9i 2.0787 i 22.2277 15.3206 i 0.0307 i : 1.1084 i 1.1084 i 1.0197 1.0197 • 2,973.217 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDTotal 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 --.18 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.8089 i 30.1246 4.9320 i 0.1106 i 2.5199 1 0.0770 i 2.5969 0.6909 i 0.0737 0.7645 i 11,750.70 11,750.70 : 0.6218 i i 11,766.24 9 I I I I I I I •� I I I I I I I . I 35 I 35 I I 1 80 MI J J J J J J J J • • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 1 2.7800e- i 0.4499 : 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i i 422.1203 '� 003 003 003 I I I I 1 Total 0.9987 30.2376 6.4532 0.1148 2.9671 0.0798 3.0468 0.8094 0.0762 0.8857 ( 12,172.54 12,172.54 0.6330 44 44 12,188.36 82 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i i i 1.3924 : 0.0000 i 1.3924 : 0.1556 i 0.0000 : 0.1556 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 91 2.0787 i 22.2277 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 i 1.0197 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I • 8 I 8 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I • I I I CD0) Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 Co 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.8089 i 30.1246 4.9320 i 0.1106 i 2.5199 0.0770 i 2.5969 0.6909 i 0.0737 0.7645 • i 11,750.70 11,750.70 : 0.6218 i i 11,766.24 9 I I I I I I I I 9I I I I I I I • I 35 I 35 I I i 80 ,� • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 9 • 1 I I ,� • J J J T Worker •i 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i 1422.1203 '1 : : : 003 1 : 003 1 : I 003 • I I I Total 0.9987 30.2376 6.4532 0.1148 2.9671 0.0798 3.0468 0.8094 0.0762 0.8857 ( 12,172.54 12,172.54 0.6330 12,188.36 44 44 82 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 3.3787 i 25.6032 i 36.0615 i 0.0597 i i 1.2907 i 1.2907 i i 1.2835 1.2835 • i 5,666.316 5,666.316 i 0.4953 i i 5,678.697 I I I I I I I I , 7 I 7 I I i 8 '� I I I I I I I I I 1 I I - Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 CQ 7 7 8 CD 0) O) CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J • 1 J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Vendor •1 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 I 2.7300e- I 0.2589 I 0.0738 1 2.6100e- ; 0.0764 i 1 1,097.877 11,097.877 1 0.0559 1 11,099.276 '1 1 I I I 1 003 I I I 003 1 9 1 9 1 I I 3 '1 I I I I I I 1 1 , 1 I I I 1 1 J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Worker •1 0.8878 1 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 1 2.2355 I 0.0135 1 2.2490 I 0.5929 1 0.0124 ; 0.6053 i 1 2,029.900 12,029.900 I 0.0500 1 12,031.150 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 4 I 4 1 1 1 7 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I I I Off-Road •1 3.3787 1 25.6032 1 36.0615 1 0.0597 1 i 1.2907 1 1.2907 1 1 1.2835 : 1.2835 � 0.0000 1 5,666.316 1 5,666.316 1 0.4953 1 i 5,678.697 '1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 I I 1 8 '1 I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 - Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 0.0000 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 to 7 7 8 CD Ol v 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J : I J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Vendor •1 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 I 2.7300e- I 0.2589 I 0.0738 1 2.6100e- ; 0.0764 • 1 1,097.877 11,097.877 1 0.0559 1 11,099.276 '1 1 I I I 1 003 I I I 003 1 9 1 9 1 I I 3 '1 I I I I I I 1 1 , • I I I 1 1 J J J J J J J J . I J J J T 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Worker •1 0.8878 1 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 1 2.2355 I 0.0135 1 2.2490 I 0.5929 1 0.0124 ; 0.6053 • 12,029.90012,029.9001 0.0500 1 I 2,031.150 '1 I I I I I I I I ; 1 4 I 4 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I I I , • I I I 1 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I Off-Road •I 3.1851 1 24.0403 1 36.0409 1 0.0597 1 1 1.1159 1 1.1159 1 i 1.1093 : 1.1093 1 5,666.182 1 5,666.182 1 0.4776 1 i 5,678.122 '1 I I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 5 'I I I I I I I I , • I , I I 1 - Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 co 2 2 5 CD O) v CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,I • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 9003 003 1 9 I 9 I I i 1 ,� • J J J T Worker •i 0.8353 i 0.4609 6.5130 i 0.0197 i 2.2355 1 0.0134 i 2.2489 : 0.5929 i 0.0123 0.6052 • i 1,964.071 : 1,964.071 : 0.0457 i i 1,965.212 9 . 1 6 I 6 I I 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 Total 0.9071 3.3068 7.0755 0.0301 2.4917 0.0161 2.5078 0.6666 0.0149 0.6816 ( 3,060.547 3,060.547 0.1015 3,063.086 5 5 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 3.1851 i 24.0403 : 36.0409 i 0.0597 i i 1.1159 i 1.1159 i i 1.1093 1.1093 •• 0.0000 i 5,666.182:5,666.182 i 0.4776 i i 5,678.122 I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 5 '9 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I - Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 0.0000 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 CQ 2 2 5 CD 0) v N CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 : 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 91 I : 003 : I 003 1 9 1 9 1 i 1 9 I 1 I 1 . I 1 I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.8353 i 0.4609 1 6.5130 i 0.0197 i 2.2355 i 0.0134 i 2.2489 i 0.5929 i 0.0123 0.6052 • i 1,964.071 : 1,964.071 : 0.0457 i i 1,965.212 9i i i i i i i i 1 6 I 6 I I : 9 Total 0.9071 3.3068 7.0755 0.0301 2.4917 0.0161 2.5078 0.6666 0.0149 0.6816 ( 3,060.547 3,060.547 0.1015 3,063.086 5 5 0 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I i 3 9I I I I I I •I • I I I 1 •i J J J J J J J J J J J v Paving 9 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 c) q I I I I I I I I . 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 a) Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 1 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 W 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 '� : 003 : : 1 003 1 9 1 9 1 i 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 : 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i 1 393.0426 9I : 1 003 1 : 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 003 003 2 2 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 : i 0.4310 : 0.4310 � 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9I I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I 1 3 9 I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 'i J J J J J J J J J J J 1 v Paving 9 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 cQ q I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • I I I Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I I I I ,I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 : 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 '� : 003 : : 1 003 1 9 1 9 1 i 1 '� I 1 I 1 . I 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 : 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 i 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 '� 1 003 1 : 003 1 1 003 1 1 003 1 I 1 Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 il . 003 003 2 2 7 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating .: 88.2672 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 •� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J SD Road 91 0.7231 i 4.8752 7.2405 i 0.0119 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 1,125.792 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9 I 1 1 1 I , 2 2 I (7 cs) Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 01 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 2.6800e- i 0.4498 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 •� I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 7.2405 i 0.0119 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I 0 '� I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CD0) Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 6) 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I •I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I •I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 1 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 9I 1 003 1 1 003 1 I : 003 1 : 003 : I Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I i 3 9I I I I I I •I I I I 1 •i J J J J J J J JJ J J v Paving 9 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 c) q I I I I I I I I . 1 I I I a) Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 1 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 v 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 '� : 003 : : 1 003 1 9 1 9 1 i 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 : 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i 1 393.0426 9I : 1 003 1 : 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 003 003 2 2 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 : i 0.4310 : 0.4310 � 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9I I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I 1 3 9 I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 'i J J J J J J J J J J J 1 v Paving 9 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 cQ q I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • I I I Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 Co 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I I I I ,I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 : 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 '� : 003 : : 1 003 1 9 1 9 1 i 1 '� I 1 I 1 . I 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 : 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 i 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 '� 1 003 1 : 003 1 1 003 1 1 003 1 I 1 Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 il . 003 003 2 2 7 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating .: 88.2672 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 •� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J SD Road 91 0.7231 i 4.8752 7.2405 i 0.0119 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 1,125.792 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9 I 1 1 1 I , 2 2 I (7 cs) Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 CO 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I 1 9 I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 2.6800e- i 0.4498 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 •� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 7.2405 i 0.0119 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9 I I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I 0 '� I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDTotal 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 Co 0 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I MI J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker •i 0.1671 i 0.0922 1 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i 1 393.0426 •1 : 003 : 1 003 : : 003 1 : 003 : I 1 Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile v u) CD rn Co 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 4 2.8630 i 16.4952 i 37.0284 i 0.1600 i 12.7073 i 0.0913 i 12.7986 i 3.3998 i 0.0851 3.4849 • i 16,342.15 i 16,342.15 i 0.6809 i i 16,359.17 9 I I I I I I I I . 46 I 46 I I 74 '1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I 1 1 I. } } } } } } } } r 1. 1. 1. r Unmitigated • 2.8630 • 16.4952 • 37.0284 • 0.1600 • 12.7073 • 0.0913 • 12.7986 • 3.3998 • 0.0851 • 3.4849 • 16,342.15• 16,342.15• 0.6809 • • 16,359.17 46 46 74 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,419.32 1,419.32 1419.32 5,631,294 • 5,631,294 City Park ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y Parking Lot + 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y f Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall ; 83.03 ; 83.03 83.03 • 329,439 329,439 Total I 1,502.35 I 1,502.35 1,502.35 I 5,960,733 I 5,960,733 44 Trip Type Information (C) CD CS) Co M CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.90 10.90 : 10.90 40.00 20.00 40.00 100 • 0 0 T City Park ;• 16.60 8.40 : 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 T 19.00 • 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse 14.70 I 5.90 ? 8.70 40.00 20.00 T 40.00 •• 100 •• 0 • 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator:▪ 16.60 1 8.40 : 6.90 i 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 7 33.00 48.00 T• • • •19.00 • 77 • 19 4 Parking Lot ;▪ 16.60 8.40 : 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool ;• 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 33.00 48.00 : 19.00 • 52 •• 39 9 • 4 r • Strip Mall • 10.90 • 10.90 • 10.90 • 16.60 • 64.40 • 19.00 • 100 • 0 : 0 • 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 LDT2 I MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303 i 0.181800: 0.111169 i 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365: 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i i i + City Park • 0.558745T 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078: 0.001365i 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745T 0.035303: 0.181800 i 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365 i 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745T 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + General Office Building • 0.558745T 0.035303: 0.181800 i 0.111169 i 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365 i 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078: 0.001365 i 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745; 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N v 5< Mitigation Measures Energy co cw CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day m NaturalGas •i 0.1146 i 0.9797 : 0.4196 1 6.2500e- i I 0.0792 i 0.0792 i i 0.0792 : 0.0792 : i 1,250.200: 1,250.200 : 0.0240 i 0.0229 1 1,257.629 Mitigated .1 I I I 003 I I I I I :. 1 I 1 I I 1 4 . I 1 I NaturalGas •• 0.1146 • 0.9797 • 0.4196 • 6.2500e- • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 1,250.200• 1,250.200• 0.0240 • 0.0229 • 1,257.629 Unmitigated 003 1 1 4 N e0 CD CD CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 44 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid I 10497.7 •1 0.1132 0.9674 1 0.4117 16.1800e- I I 0.0782 I 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 11,235.025 I 0.0237 I 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I .1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 ;1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park i 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I . I 1 I 1 I I .I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I , . I 1 I 1 I r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous i 62.0919 •1 6.7000e- 15.7200e- 12.4300e- 14.00OOe- I 14.6000e- 14.6000e- I 14.6000e- 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 I 7.3049 11.4000e- 11.3000e- i 7.3483 e I .1 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 ■ 1 1 I 004 I 004 i .I I I I I 1 1 1 I , . I 1 1 1 I r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking i 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I ; I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office i 46.5836 •1 5.0000e- 14.5700e- 13.8400e- 13.0000e- I 13.5000e- 13.5000e- I 13.5000e- 3.5000e- 0 1 5.4804 I 5.4804 11.1000e- 11.00OOe- i 5.5130 Building I ;: 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 , i 1 I 1 . I I I I 1 1 1 I , . 1 1 004 1 004 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot i 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 0 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I .I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J ., I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational i 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 0 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall i 20.3084 •1 2.2000e- 11.9900e- 11.6700e- 11.00OOe- I 11.5000e- 11.5000e- I 11.5000e- 1.5000e- 1 2.3892 I 2.3892 I S.00OOe- 14.00OOe- i 2.4034 I '1 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 1 �1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I , I 1 1 005 1 005 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 0) CD C) CO 01 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 45 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid I 10.4977 •1 0.1132 0.9674 1 0.4117 16.1800e- 1 I 0.0782 I 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 1 1,235.025 I 0.0237 1 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I •1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 ;1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 , • 1 1 1 1 1 I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park 1 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I 1 • 1 1 I I 1 I ••1 I I I I I I I I , • 1 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J .1 J J -• I J J J -r I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous 10.06209199 6.7000e- 15.7200e- 1 2.4300e- 1 4.0000e- I 1 4.6000e- 14.6000e- 1 1 4.6000e- 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 1 7.3049 11.4000e- 11.3000e- 1 7.3483 e I ; 004003 003005 I 004 I 004 I 004 004 1 1 1 I • 1 004 I 004 i •I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 , • 1 1 1 1 I I : 1 : : 1 : 1 I 1 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 I I 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , • I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office 10.0465836.1 5.0000e- 14.5700e- 1 3.8400e- 1 3.0000e- I 1 3.5000e- 13.5000e- 1 1 3.5000e- 3.5000e- I 1 5.4804 1 5.4804 11.1000e- 11.0000e- 1 5.5130 Building I ;: 004 003 1 003 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 004 004 • i 1 I 1 • 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 , • 1 1 004 1 004 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : : 1 : 1 : : 1 I : I : Parking Lot 1 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I i I ••1 I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J . I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational 1 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 Swimming Pool I ,1 I I I I I I I I . I I 1 I 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 I 1 I r 41 J J J J J I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall 10.0203084.1 2.2000e- 11.9900e- 1 1.6700e- 1 1.0000e- I 1 1.5000e- 11.5000e- 1 1 1.5000e- 1.5000e- • 1 2.3892 1 2.3892 15.0000e- 14.0000e- 1 2.4034 I •1 004 003 003 005 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 005 I 005 i 9 I I I I 1 1 1 I , • 1 1 1 1 1 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 6.0 Area Detail 6.-t Mitigation Measures Area co CD CS) CO rn CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 46 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 7.0358 i 4.5605 i 23.3317 i 0.0287 i i 0.4677 i 0.4677 i 1 0.4677 : 0.4677 : 0.0000 •5,544.624 i 5,544.624 i 0.1429 i 0.1009 1 5,578.277 9 I I I I I I I I . I •2 I 2 I I 1 1 91 I I • I I • I . I 1 Unmitigated • 7.0358 • 4.5605 • 23.3317 • 0.0287 • • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • 0.0000 •5,544.624•5,544.624• 0.1429 • 0.1009 •5,578.277 2 2 1 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.4837 i i 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 J i 0.0000 : 0.0000 • : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating :1 I .I I I I I ' I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • I • I I 1 v J J J Consumer 9 5.3977 1 1 i 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 • i i 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 Products :: • I I I • I • . I • I 1 '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • I 1 1 1 i Hearth 9 0.5047 1 4.3129 1 1.8353 1 0.0275 1 1 0.3487 1 0.3487 1 1 0.3487 0.3487 : 0.0000 i 5,505.882 1 5,505.882 1 0.1055 1 0.1009 :5,538.601 landscaping 9 0.6498 1 0.2475 1 21.4964 1 1.1400e- 1 1 0.1190 1 0.1190 1 1 0.1190 0.1190 • i 38.7418 1 38.7418 1 0.0374 1 I 39.6760 '� • : 003 • • I I I • . I I • • 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • . • 1 1 v Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 47 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2T Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural • I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i 0.4837 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 Coating •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J a V I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 Consumer •1 5.3977 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 1 1 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Products :: 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 1 I 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �I J J a J a J J a V I J J J T I I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Hearth •1 0.5047 1 4.3129 1 1.8353 1 0.0275 1 0.3487 1 0.3487 1 1 0.3487 0.3487 : 0.0000 1 5,505.882 1 5,505.882 1 0.1055 I 0.1009 i 5,538.601 9 I I I I I I I I . I 4 I 4 I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I �I J J a J a J J a V I J J J T I 1 : : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Landscaping •1 0.6498 1 0.2475 1 21.4964 1.1400e- 1 0.1190 1 0.1190 1 1 0.1190 0.1190 � 1 38.7418 1 38.7418 1 0.0374 I i 39.6760 '1 I I I 003 1 I I I I . I I I I '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 I 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste -o 9c5 Operational Offroad Equipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Days/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 48 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor I Fuel Type 1 Boilers LEquipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 1 11.0 Vegetation v o cn co co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 7.60 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 T 4,900.00 i 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 300.00 + Space ; 0.00 120,000.00 + 0 Parking Lot 226.00 + Space ; 1.80 90,400.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,374.80 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.07 3,000.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 259,000.00 + 741 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 r r + I- Strip Mall 3.34 1000sgft 0.00 3,339.00 0 • • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) v 1 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 0 Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor" Land Use - See SWAPE comments on "Failure to Model Required Amount of Parking" and "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Us Enclosed Parking= 57% of total, Parking Lot=43% of total parking. CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Construction Phase-Consistent with IS/MND's model Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Architectural Coating -See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Woodstoves -Woodstoves: consistent with IS/MND's model. Fireplaces: See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values" Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Energy Use- Water And Wastewater- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Solid Waste Generation Rates" Total adds up to 584 tons/year Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project-San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces • FireplaceWoodMass } 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces Y FireplaceWoodMass + T 1,019.20 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 220.15 259.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 0.85 T 1.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 25.90 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 0.10 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 12.95 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 0.05 T 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 60.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 45.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 24.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 12.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 21,180.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 7,600.00 T 4,900.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 1,000.00 T 1,570.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 3,340.00 T 3,339.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.17 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.70 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.03 T 1.80 m tblLandUse LotAcreage + 6.82 T 3.00 c tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.06 T 0.00 cs)Iv tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.08 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount + 1.00 T 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 4 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblOffRoadEquipment i OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 3.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor * 702.44 630 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 119.14 555.83 t • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber * 2,648.00 2,880.00 CD 4 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber * 1,324.00 1,440.00 co tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 66.00 40.00 4 4 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber • 66.00 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber ,i 15.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 57.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips CC_TL ,i 8.40 10.90 r • tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL f 6.90 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips CW_TL * 16.60 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 40.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL * 8.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TL * 5.90 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips CD Y HS_TTP * 19.20 T 20.00 tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP * 19.20 20.00 tblVehicleTrips HW_TL * 14.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP * 40.20 40.00 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 6 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP f 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP ,i 15.00 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 45.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 6.39 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 22.75 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 5.67 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 2.46 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 9.10 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 42.04 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR ,i 5.86 5.48 r • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR f 16.74 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 4.84 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 1.05 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 13.60 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 20.43 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 6.65 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 1.89 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 5.81 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 11.03 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips Y WD_TR * 33.82 Ttv 0.00 CD tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 44.32 24.86 v' tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 16,874,892.64 16,940,046.66 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 177,429.43 0.00 4 4 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate • 10,638,519.27 10,679,594.63 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 827,895.26 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic f 12.95 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic • ,i 0.05 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 12.95 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 0.05 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass r 999.60 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary v CD 0) CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Year lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 2022 •i 4.9932 1 82.6995 1 44.7823 1 0.2498 1 8.2717 1 1.6582 1 9.5391 1 1.8114 1 1.6365 2.9832 � 0.0000 i 26,230.58 1 26,230.58 1 2.3224 1 0.0000 i 26,288.64 •1 I I I I I I I I . 1 29 1 29 1 I 1 33 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I 1 1 1 :1 J J J J J J J J v 1 J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 2023 .1 4.6581 1 32.2705 1 44.0472 1 0.0930 1 2.4917 1 1.4465 1 3.9382 1 0.6666 1 1.4269 ; 2.0936 0.0000 1 9,032.143 1 9,032.143 1 0.7591 1 0.0000 i 9,051.121 '1 I I I I I I I 1 . 1 8 I 8 1 I 1 5'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I I 1 :1 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2024 •1 89.1591 1 27.3329 1 42.0026 1 0.0873 1 2.4917 1 1.1321 1 3.6238 1 0.6666 1 1.1243 ; 1.7910 0.0000 1 8,483.069 1 8,483.069 1 0.7838 1 0.0000 i 8,497.557 •1 I I I I I I I 1 . 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 3 •1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 , . 1 I I 1 Maximum 89.1591 82.6995 44.7823 0.2498 8.2717 1.6582 9.5391 1.8114 1.6365 2.9832 0.0000 26,230.58 26,230.58 2.3224 0.0000 26,288.64 11 29 29 33 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2 5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day 2022 4 4.9932 1 82.6995 I 44.7823 I 0.2498 1 8.2717 I 1.6582 I 9.5391 1 1.8114 I 1.6365 2.9832 : 0.0000 i 26,230.58 I 26,230.58 I 2.3224 I 0.0000 i 26,288.64 9 1 I I I I I I I . 1 29 1 29 1 I I 33 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J .. I J J J t 13 '1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I v 2023 .1 4.6581 32.2705 1 44.0472 1 0.0930 I 2.4917 I 1.4465 1 3.9382 I 0.6666 1 1.4269 ; 2.0936 • 0.0000 19,032.143 9,032.143 1 0.7591 I 0.0000 T 9,051.121 co •1 I I I I I I I I . 1 8 I 8 I I I 5 CD •1 1 I I I I I I I , . 1 1 1 I 1 'I i i i i i i i i I i i i1. rn 2024 .1 89.1591 1 27.3329 1 42.0026 1 0.0873 1 2.4917 1 1.1321 1 3.6238 1 0.6666 1 1.1243 ; 1.7910 • 0.0000 18,483.06918,483.0691 0.7838 1 0.0000 :8,497.557 -' '1 1 I I I I I I I . 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 3 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum 89.1591 82.6995 44.7823 0.2498 8.2717 1.6582 9.5391 1.8114 1.6365 2.9832 0.0000 26,230.58 26,230.58 2.3224 0.0000 26,288.64 29 29 33 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 0) CD CO Co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I : I 1 1 I 1 1 Area •i 7.0358 1 4.5605 1 23.3317 1 0.0287 1 0.4677 1 0.4677 1 1 0.4677 0.4677 � 0.0000 1 5,544.624 1 5,544.624 1 0.1429 I 0.1009 i 5,578.277 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 2 I 2 I I 1 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �1 J J J J J J J J V I J J J T 1 I 1 I : I I 1 I 1 1 1 Energy •1 0.1146 1 0.9797 1 0.4196 1 6.2500e- 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 0.0792 � 1 1,250.200 1 1,250.200 1 0.0240 I 0.0229 : 1,257.629 '1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I . 1 1 I 1 I I I 4 '1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 . I 1 I 1 1 �1 J J J J J J J J V I J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 Mobile .1 2.4971 1 16.5393 1 32.0045 1 0.1477 1 12.7073 1 0.0917 1 12.7990 1 3.3998 1 0.0855 3.4853 � 1 15,111.76 1 15,111.76 1 0.6865 I i 15,128.93 '1 I I I I I I I I I .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 81 1 81 : 1 1 14 Total 9.6475 22.0795 55.7558 0.1827 12.7073 0.6387 13.3459 3.3998 0.6324 4.0323 0.0000 21,906.59 21,906.59 0.8534 0.1239 21,964.83 24 24 79 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I Area •1 7.0358 1 4.5605 1 23.3317 1 0.0287 1 1 0.4677 1 0.4677 1 1 0.4677 0.4677 0.0000 5,544.624 1 5,544.624 1 0.1429 1 0.1009 i 5,578.277 '1 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I 1 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . • I I I 1 •1 J J J J J J J J J J J Energy .1 0.1146 1 0.9797 1 0.4196 1 6.2500e- I 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 : 0.0792 • 1,250.20011,250.2001 0.0240 1 0.0229 1 1,257.629 '1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 . 1 1 I •1 I I I 003 I I I I I • 1 I 1 I I I 4 CD •1 I I I 1 I I I I • 1 I 1 1 J J J J J J J J v J J I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 0) Mobile .1 2.4971 1 16.5393 1 32.0045 1 0.1477 1 12.7073 1 0.0917 1 12.7990 1 3.3998 1 0.0855 3.4853 . 15,111.76 1 15,111.76 1 0.6865 1 i 15,128.93 CO '1 I I I I I I I I . 81 1 81 1 I 1 14 CO '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I I 1 Total 9.6475 22.0795 55.7558 0.1827 12.7073 0.6387 13.3459 3.3998 0.6324 4.0323 0.0000 21,906.59 21,906.59 0.8534 0.1239 21,964.83 24 24 79 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 -Demolition !▪Demolition 13/5/2022 :4/1/2022 1 5: 20: , , 2 :Site Preparation :Grading I4/30/2022 :5/27/2022 1 51 20: + I , I . i , , 3 -Trenching/Utilites-East Building Site Preparation 14/2/2022 14/15/2022 1 51 10: , , 4 :Construction-East Building :Building Construction 16/25/2022 15/12/2023 1 51 230: + I , I . i , , 5 -Grading :Grading I5/28/2022 16/24/2022 1 51 20 : , , 6 -Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation 14/16/2022 14/29/2022 1 51 10: + I , I . i , , 7 :Construction-West Building :Building Construction I5/13/2023 13/29/2024 1 51 230 , , 8 -Paving-East Building :Paying 13/30/2024 :4/26/2024 1 51 20: + I , I I i , , 9 :Architectural Coatings East Bldg :Architectural Coating I5/25/2024 :6/21/2024 1 51 20: : , , 10 -Paving-West Building :Paying 14/27/2024 :5/24/2024 1 51 20: + 1 I 1 1 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:A▪ rchitectural Coating .6/22/2024 :7/19/2024 5: 20 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 0) Ares of Paving: 1.8 0 Rsidential Indoor: 527,654; Residential Outdoor: 175,885; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,359; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,120; Striped Parking Area: 12,624 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 11 8.00 81: 0.73 Demolition Excavators ; 1 B.00! 158' 0.38 --+ Demolition Generator Sets ; 2; 4.001 84' 0.74 Demolition Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 2; B.00! 247' 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00i 212' 0.43 --+ Site Preparation Excavators ; 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 --+ Site Preparation Graders ; 1! 8.001 187' 0.41 --4- Site Preparation Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --4- Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --4- Site Preparation +Scrapers ; 1! B.00! 367' 0.48 Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00i 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilites-East Building Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building Excavators ; 1! 8.001 158' 0.38 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 Construction-East Building !Air Compressors ; 10! 8.001 78' 0.48 --.- Construction-East Building +Cranes ; 1! 7.00i 231' 0.29 Construction-East Building Forklifts ; 0 8.00i 89' 0.20 _ Construction-East Building Generator Sets ; 2 8.00i 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-East Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --+ Cgstruction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 ca --.- Castruction-East Building :Welders 0; 8.O01 46' 0.45 •-© i ,- - - --4 i Grading Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 �_ _ _ Grading :Excavators ; 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 * i- Grading :Graders 1: 8.00' 187: 0.41 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • Grading •Rollers 2i 8.00• 80• 0.38 Grading Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0 8.001 247: 0.40 _ Grading Scrapers ; 1! 8.001 367' 0.48 --4- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 8.00197' 0.37 Trenching/Utilities-West Building Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.001 212' 0.43 Trenching/Utilities-West Building Excavators ; 1 8.001 158' 0.38 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --4- Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 --+ Construction-West Building +Air Compressors ; 10! 8.001 78' 0.48 --.- Construction-West Building :Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --.- Construction-West Building Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --.- Construction-West Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-West Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --.- Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 --+ Construction-West Building Welders ; 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 Paving-East Building +Pavers ; 2; 8.00 130' 0.42 Paving-East Building Paving Equipment ; 2 8.00 132' 0.36 a _ Paving-East Building :Rollers ; 2 8.00180' 0.38 Architectural Coatings East Bldg !Air Compressors ; 4; 6.001 78' 0.48 --.- Paving-West Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --+ Paving-West Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 Ping-West Building +Rollers ; 2; 8.00 80' 0.38 ._ccz ' * F 1- Arehitectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 4' 6.00' 78: 0.48 o N Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 40.001 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT ' I I I ' J Site Preparation 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT 1 I I ' J Trenching/Utilites- 6; 40.00. 0.001 2,880.001 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+Q„il.+inn £ • I I I I j Construction-East i 15: 200.00. 40.00i 0- .00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q„II.JInn , I I I I J -i - T Grading 6; 40.001 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix �HDT_Mix HHDT ' 1 I I ' J -1 - T Trenching/Utilities- 6: 40.001 0.00 i 1,440.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix HHDT U/1,c+Q,dlrlinn. I I I I I j Construction-West i 14: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q„II.JInn , I I I I j Paving-East Building 's 6; 40.00. 40.00i 0- .00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT ' 1 I I ' J Architectural Coatings i 4; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+01,1, • I I I I Paving-West Building; 6: 40.00. 40.00i 0- .00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT 1 1 , : I i r I- r * - -- T + T Architectural Coatings : 4' 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix 'HHDT \Nnc+QIfI-. 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 0) rn p Off-Road • 2.5643 I 25.0937 I 17.7597 I 0.0351 1 1 1.2177 I 1.2177 I II 1.1441 1.1441 • ' 3,369.785I 3,369.785I 0.7586 1 i 3,388.750 9 I I I I I I I I • 1 2 I 2 I I I 3 O 'I 1 I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I 1 4) ' Total 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day ;r I I I I I I I 1 I 1 Hauling 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I I 1 I I 1 I 1 : I : I 1 T Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I I 1 I I 1 I 1 : I 1 I 1 T Worker 9 0.1907 1 0.1188 1 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 1 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 1 378.4584 1 378.4584 I 9.8100e- 1 i 378.7036 -I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 003 I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total .11 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I 1 I I I I Off-Road .1 2.5643 1 25.0937 1 17.7597 1 0.0351 1 1 1.2177 1 1.2177 1 i 1.1441 : 1.1441 : 0.0000 1 3,369.785 1 3,369.785 1 0.7586 1 i 3,388.750 -1 1 I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I 1 1 3 9 1 I I I I I I I , ; I 1 I I 1 I13 Total 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 0.0000 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 (Q 2 2 3 CD 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust �i i i i i 3.1815 : 0.0000 i 3.1815 : 0.3435 i 0.0000 : 0.3435 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9i 2.5506 i 29.6686 16.4479 i 0.0427 i 1.1687 i 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 • 4,137.845 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 9 I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 '� I I I I I . I I 1 CD Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i i i i 3.1815 : 0.0000 i 3.1815 : 0.3435 i 0.0000 : 0.3435 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9i 2.5506 i 29.6686 16.4479 i 0.0427 i 1.1687 i 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 • 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 9 I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDTotal 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 6) 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 l 003 1 I Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 i 2.7847 : 0.3111 i 0.0000 : 0.3111 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9i 2.0787 i 22.2277 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 i 1.0197 1.0197 • 2,973.217 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDTotal 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 -.I8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 1.6919 i 60.3531 11.2441 i 0.2153 i 5.0399 0.1562 i 5.1961 1.3817 i 0.1495 1.5312 • i 22,878.90 22,878.90 i 1.3510 i i 22,912.68 9 I •� I I I I I I I . 67 I I I 67 i 19 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I • I 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I 1 M ••I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 9I : 1 003 1 : 003 1 : I 003 I 1 003 I I Total 1.8826 60.4719 12.4898 0.2191 5.4870 0.1590 5.6460 1.5003 0.1520 1.6524 23,257.36 23,257.36 1.3608 51 51 23,291.38 55 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 i 2.7847 : 0.3111 i 0.0000 : 0.3111 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9i 2.0787 i 22.2277 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 i 1.0197 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I • 8 I 8 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I . I I I CDTotal 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 Co 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 1.6919 i 60.3531 11.2441 i 0.2153 i 5.0399 0.1562 i 5.1961 1.3817 i 0.1495 1.5312 • i 22,878.90 22,878.90 i 1.3510 i i 22,912.68 9 I I I I I I I I 9I I I I I I I . I 67 I 67 I I i 19 ,� • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 9 • 1 I I ,� • J J J T Worker •i 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 9I : 1 003 1 : 003 1 : I 003 I 1 003 I I Total 1.8826 60.4719 12.4898 0.2191 5.4870 0.1590 5.6460 1.5003 0.1520 1.6524 23,257.36 23,257.36 1.3608 23,291.38 51 51 55 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 4 3.9372 i 31.2581 i 37.7657 i 0.0647 i i 1.6386 i 1.6386 i i 1.6182 : 1.6182 • i 6,155.195:6,155.195 i 0.6776 i i 6,172.134 I I I I I I I I , 3 I 3 I I 1 1 '� I I I I I I I I I 1 I I - Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 SD CQ 3 3 1 CD -J O 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,� • J J J T Vendor 9 0.1024 i 3.6155 0.7882 i 0.0103 i 0.2562 1 5.7200e- i 0.2619 : 0.0738 i 5.4700e- 0.0792 • i 1,085.025: 1,085.025 : 0.0771 i i 1,086.952 9003 003 1 0 I 0 I I 1 4 ,� • J J J T Worker •i 0.9535 i 0.5937 6.2284 i 0.0190 i 2.2355 1 0.0139 i 2.2494 : 0.5929 i 0.0128 0.6057 • i 1,892.292: 1,892.292 : 0.0490 i i 1,893.518 9 . : 0 I 0 I I 1 0 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 Total 1.0559 4.2092 7.0166 0.0293 2.4917 0.0196 2.5113 0.6666 0.0183 0.6849 2,977.317 2,977.317 0.1261 2,980.470 0 0 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 3.9372 : 31.2581 : 37.7657 : 0.0647 i : 1.6386 : 1.6386 : i 1.6182 1.6182 • 0.0000 i 6,155.195 6,155.195 i 0.6776 : 1 6,172.134 I I I I I I I , 3 I 3 I I 1 1 '9 I I I I I I I I I , I I - Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 0.0000 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 SD CQ 3 3 1 CD -J 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,� • J J J T Vendor 9 0.1024 i 3.6155 0.7882 i 0.0103 i 0.2562 1 5.7200e- i 0.2619 : 0.0738 i 5.4700e- 0.0792 • i 1,085.025: 1,085.025 : 0.0771 i i 1,086.952 9003 003 1 0 I 0 I I 1 4 ,� • J J J T Worker •i 0.9535 i 0.5937 6.2284 i 0.0190 i 2.2355 1 0.0139 i 2.2494 : 0.5929 i 0.0128 0.6057 • i 1,892.292: 1,892.292 : 0.0490 i i 1,893.518 9 . : 0 I 0 I I 1 0 9 I I I I 1 I 1 I . I 1 I I Total 1.0559 4.2092 7.0166 0.0293 2.4917 0.0196 2.5113 0.6666 0.0183 0.6849 2,977.317 2,977.317 0.1261 2,980.470 0 0 4 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 Off-Road •1 3.6862 i 28.9417 i 37.6666 i 0.0647 i i 1.4301 i 1.4301 1 i 1.4118 1.4118 • i 6,155.283 6,155.283 i 0.6534 i i 6,171.618 I I I I I I I , 5 I 5 I I i 2 '� I I I I I I I I I , I I - Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 SD CQ 5 5 2 CD -J 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,I • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0772 i 2.7944 0.6705 i 0.0100 i 0.2562 1 2.8300e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.7100e- 0.0765 • i 1,055.593: 1,055.593 : 0.0618 i i 1,057.137 9003 003 1 4 I 4 I I 1 7 91 1 . I 1 1 1 Worker •i 0.8947 i 0.5344 5.7101 i 0.0183 i 2.2355 i 0.0135 i 2.2490 : 0.5929 i 0.0124 0.6053 • i 1,821.266: 1,821.266 : 0.0440 i i 1,822.365 98 I 8 I I 1 7 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 I 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 2 2 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I Off-Road •i 3.6862 i 28.9417 i 37.6666 1 i 0.0647 i i 1.4301 i 1.4301 1 i 1.4118 1.4118 0.0000 i 6,155.283 6,155.283 i 0.6534 i 1 6,171.618 I I I I I I I I 5 1 5 I I 1 2 '9 I I I I I I I I I , I I - Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 0.0000 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 SD CQ 5 5 2 CD -J M CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I . I I I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0772 i 2.7944 0.6705 i 0.0100 i 0.2562 1 2.8300e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.7100e- 0.0765 • i 1,055.593: 1,055.593 : 0.0618 i i 1,057.137 '� 003 003 4 I 4 I 1 7 '� 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J + Worker 9 0.8947 i 0.5344 5.7101 i 0.0183 i 2.2355 i 0.0135 i 2.2490 0.5929 i 0.0124 0.6053 • i 1,821.266 1,821.266 : 0.0440 i i 1,822.365 9i i i i i i i i g i g i I i 7 Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 I 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2 2 2,879.503 3 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust :i i i i i 2.3861 i 0.0000 i 2.3861 i 0.2577 i 0.0000 : 0.2577 ••• i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 16.4479 i 0.0427 i 1.1687 i 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 • 4,137.845 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 9 I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I �1 Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 �j 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I MI J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J + Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 1 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 1 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 9 I : 003 : 1 003 1 : 003 1 I : 003 : i Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 I 1 Fugitive Dust 9 i i i : 2.3861 : 0.0000 i 2.3861 : 0.2577 : 0.0000 : 0.2577 .. i 0.0000 : i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9i 2.5506 i 29.6686 16.4479 i 0.0427 i 1.1687 i 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 • 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 9 I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 '�CD I I I I I I I . I I I 1 �1 Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 l 003 1 I Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i i i 1.3924 : 0.0000 i 1.3924 : 0.1556 i 0.0000 : 0.1556 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9i 2.0787 i 22.2277 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 i 1.0197 1.0197 • 2,973.217 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDv Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 �j 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.8459 i 30.1766 5.6221 i 0.1077 i 2.5199 1 0.0781 i 2.5981 0.6909 i 0.0747 0.7656 i 11,439.45 11,439.45 i 0.6755 i i 11,456.34 9 I I I I I I I •� I I I I I I I . I 34 I 34 I I 1 10 MI J J J J J J J J • • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 1 2.7800e- i 0.4499 : 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 '� I : 1 003 1 I 003 : : I 003 1 1 003 1 I 1 Total 1.0366 30.2953 6.8677 0.1115 2.9671 0.0809 3.0479 0.8094 0.0773 0.8867 ( 11,817.91 11,817.91 0.6853 18 18 11,835.04 46 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i i i 1.3924 : 0.0000 i 1.3924 : 0.1556 i 0.0000 : 0.1556 ••• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9i 2.0787 i 22.2277 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 i 1.0197 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I • 8 I 8 I I I 8 '� I I I I I I I . I I I CDv Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.8459 i 30.1766 5.6221 i 0.1077 i 2.5199 0.0781 i 2.5981 0.6909 i 0.0747 0.7656 • i 11,439.45 11,439.45 i 0.6755 i i 11,456.34 9 I I I I I I I I 9I I I I I I I • I 34 I 34 I I i 10 ,� • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker •i 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 9I : 1 003 1 : 003 1 : I 003 I 1 003 I I Total 1.0366 30.2953 6.8677 0.1115 2.9671 0.0809 3.0479 0.8094 0.0773 0.8867 ( 11,817.91 11,817.91 0.6853 11,835.04 18 18 46 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 3.3787 i 25.6032 36.0615 i 0.0597 i i 1.2907 i 1.2907 i i 1.2835 1.2835 • i 5,666.316 5,666.316 i 0.4953 i i 5,678.697 I I I I I I I I . 7 I 7 I I 1 8 '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I - Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 SD CQ 7 7 8 CD -J v CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,I • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0772 i 2.7944 0.6705 i 0.0100 i 0.2562 1 2.8300e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.7100e- 0.0765 • i 1,055.593: 1,055.593 : 0.0618 i i 1,057.137 9003 003 1 4 I 4 I I 1 7 ,� • J J J T Worker •i 0.8947 i 0.5344 5.7101 i 0.0183 i 2.2355 1 0.0135 i 2.2490 : 0.5929 i 0.0124 0.6053 • i 1,821.266: 1,821.266: 0.0440 i i 1,822.365 98 I 8 I I 1 7 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 I 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 2 2 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 3.3787 i 25.6032 : 36.0615 i 0.0597 i i 1.2907 i 1.2907 i i 1.2835 : 1.2835 •• 0.0000 i 5,666.316:5,666.316 i 0.4953 i i 5,678.697 I I I I I I I I 7 1 7 I I 1 8 '9 I I I I I I I I I , I I - Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 0.0000 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 SD CQ 7 7 8 CD -J CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,I • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0772 i 2.7944 : 0.6705 i 0.0100 i 0.2562 1 2.8300e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.7100e- 0.0765 • i 1,055.593: 1,055.593 : 0.0618 i i 1,057.137 9 :I : 003 : I 003 1 4 1 4 i 7 91 1 I 1 . I 1 1 1 Worker •i 0.8947 i 0.5344 1 5.7101 i 0.0183 i 2.2355 i 0.0135 i 2.2490 i 0.5929 i 0.0124 0.6053 • i 1,821.266: 1,821.266 : 0.0440 i i 1,822.365 98 I 8 I I i 7 Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 I 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 2 2 3 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 3.1851 i 24.0403 i 36.0409 i 0.0597 i i 1.1159 i 1.1159 i i 1.1093 1.1093 • 5,666.182 5,666.182 i 0.4776 i i 5,678.122 9I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I I 5 I I I I I I I I , I I - Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 SD CQ 2 2 5 CD -J CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 9 . I I I ,I • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662: 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 9003 003 003 3 I 3 I I 1 3 ,� • J J J T Worker •i 0.8442 i 0.4839 5.3154 i 0.0177 i 2.2355 1 0.0134 i 2.2489 : 0.5929 i 0.0123 0.6052 • i 1,762.225: 1,762.225: 0.0401 i i 1,763.228 9 . : 0 I 0 I I 1 6 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 Total 0.9203 3.2927 5.9617 0.0277 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6816 2,816.887 2,816.887 0.1019 2,819.434 2 2 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 3.1851 i 24.0403 : 36.0409 i 0.0597 i i 1.1159 i 1.1159 i i 1.1093 1.1093 •• 0.0000 i 5,666.182:5,666.182 i 0.4776 i i 5,678.122 1 I I I I I I 2 1 2 I I 1 5 '9 I I I I I I I I I , I I - Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 0.0000 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 SD CQ 2 2 5 CD -J IV CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 : 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662: 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 91 : 003 1 l 003 1 1 1 003 3 1 3 1 i 3 91 1 I 1 . I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.8442 i 0.4839 1 5.3154 i 0.0177 i 2.2355 i 0.0134 i 2.2489 i 0.5929 i 0.0123 0.6052 • i 1,762.225: 1,762.225 : 0.0401 i 1 1,763.228 9i i i i i i i i : 0 1 0 I I i 6 9 11 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I Total 0.9203 3.2927 5.9617 0.0277 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6816 ( 2,816.887 2,816.887 0.1019 2,819.434 2 2 9 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I 1 I 1 I . 2 1 2 I I i 3 9I I I I I I •I • I I I 1 •i J J J J J J J J J J J v Paving 9 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 c) q I I I I I I I I . 1 I I I N Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I I I I I ; J J J .J J J J J •• J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662: 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 '� 1 003 1 1 003 1 : 1 003 1 3 I 3 I 1 3 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 � 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 : 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 '� I : 1 003 : : 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I 1 Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 003 003 2 2 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 : i 0.4310 : 0.4310 •• 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 3 9 I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 '� J J J J J J J J J J J 1 v Paving 9 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 cQ q I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • I I I N Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 IV 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I I ,I J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 9 1 003 1 1 003 1 : 1 003 1 3 I 3 I 1 3 '� 1 I I 1 I 1 I . I 1 1 I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 1 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 i 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 '� : 003 : : 003 1 1 003 1 l 003 1 I 1 Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 il . 003 003 2 2 0 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating .: 88.2672 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 •� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J SD Road 91 0.7231 i 4.8752 7.2405 i 0.0119 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 1,125.792 1,125.792 : 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9 I 1 1 1 I , 2 2 I 0 cs) N Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 W 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I . I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 � 2.6800e- i 0.4498 � 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 •� I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 7.2405 i 0.0119 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I 0 '� I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDN Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I •I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I •I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9I 1 003 1 1 003 1 I : 003 1 : 003 : I Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I i 3 9I I I I I I •I I I I 1 •i J J J J J J J JJ J J v Paving 9 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 c) q I I I I I I I I . 1 I I I N Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 1 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 01 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I I I I I ; J J J .J J J J J •• J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662: 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 '� 1 003 1 1 003 1 : 1 003 1 3 I 3 I 1 3 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 : 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9I : 1 003 : : 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 003 003 2 2 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 : i 0.4310 : 0.4310 � 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9I I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I 1 3 9 I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 '� J J J J J J J J J J J 1 v Paving 9 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 cQ q I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • I I I N Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 6) 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I I ,I J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 9 1 003 1 1 003 1 : 1 003 1 3 I 3 I 1 3 '� 1 I I 1 I 1 I . I 1 1 I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 1 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 i 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 '� : 003 : : 003 1 1 003 1 l 003 1 I 1 Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 il . 003 003 2 2 0 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating .: 88.2672 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 •� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J J J SD Road 91 0.7231 i 4.8752 7.2405 i 0.0119 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 1,125.792 1,125.792 : 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9 I 1 1 1 I , 2 2 I 0 cs) N Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 --.12 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I 1 9 I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I 1 9 I I 1 I I 1 M •.I J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 2.6800e- i 0.4498 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 •� I I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J SD Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 7.2405 i 0.0119 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9 I I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I 0 '� I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CDN Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 Co 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I MI J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker •i 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i 1 352.6457 •1 : 003 : 1 003 : : 003 1 : 003 : I 1 Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile v co CO N co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 4 2.4971 i 16.5393 i 32.0045 i 0.1477 i 12.7073 i 0.0917 i 12.7990 i 3.3998 i 0.0855 1 3.4853 • i 15,111.76 i 15,111.76 i 0.6865 1 i 15,128.93 9 I I I I I I I I . 81 81 I 14 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 Unmitigated • 2.4971 • 16.5393 • 32.0045 • 0.1477 • 12.7073 • 0.0917 • 12.7990 • 3.3998 • 0.0855 • 3.4853 • 15,111.76• 15,111.76 • 0.6865 • • 15,128.93 81 81 14 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,419.32 1,419.32 1419.32 5,631,294 • 5,631,294 City Park ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y Parking Lot + 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y f Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall ; 83.03 ; 83.03 83.03 • 329,439 329,439 Total I 1,502.35 I 1,502.35 1,502.35 I 5,960,733 I 5,960,733 44 Trip Type Information (r) CD w 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project-San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.90 10.90 : 10.90 40.00 20.00 40.00 100 • 0 0 T City Park ;• 16.60 8.40 I 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 •T 19.00 • 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse 14.70 I 5.90 ? 8.70 40.00 20.00 T 40.00 •• 100 •• 0 • 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator:▪ 16.60 1 8.40 : 6.90 i 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 7 33.00 48.00 T• • • •19.00 • 77 • 19 4 Parking Lot ;▪ 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool ;• 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 33.00 48.00 : 19.00 • 52 •• 39 9 • 4 r • Strip Mall • 10.90 • 10.90 10.90 • 16.60 64.40 • 19.00 • 100 • 0 : 0 • 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 LDT2 I MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303 i 0.181800: 0.111169 i 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365: 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i i i + City Park • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + General Office Building • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745; 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N v 5 9 Mitigation Measures Energy CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day m NaturalGas •i 0.1146 i 0.9797 : 0.4196 1 6.2500e- i I 0.0792 i 0.0792 i i 0.0792 : 0.0792 : i 1,250.200: 1,250.200 : 0.0240 i 0.0229 1 1,257.629 Mitigated .1 I I I 003 I I I I I :. 1 I 1 I I 1 4 . I 1 I NaturalGas •• 0.1146 • 0.9797 • 0.4196 • 6.2500e- • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 1,250.200• 1,250.200• 0.0240 • 0.0229 • 1,257.629 Unmitigated 003 1 1 4 N e0 CD v CO N) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 44 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid I 10497.7 •1 0.1132 0.9674 1 0.4117 16.1800e- I I 0.0782 I 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 11,235.025 I 0.0237 I 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I .1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 ;1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park i 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I . I 1 I 1 I I .I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I , . I 1 I 1 I r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous i 62.0919 •1 6.7000e- 15.7200e- 12.4300e- 14.00OOe- I 14.6000e- 14.6000e- I 14.6000e- 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 I 7.3049 11.4000e- 11.3000e- i 7.3483 e I .1 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 ■ 1 1 I 004 I 004 i .I I I I I 1 1 1 I , . I 1 1 1 I r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking i 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I ; I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office i 46.5836 •1 5.0000e- 14.5700e- 13.8400e- 13.0000e- I 13.5000e- 13.5000e- I 13.5000e- 3.5000e- 0 1 5.4804 I 5.4804 11.1000e- 11.00OOe- i 5.5130 Building I ;: 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 . i 1 I 1 . I I I I 1 1 1 I , . 1 1 004 1 004 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot i 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 0 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I .I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J ., I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational i 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 0 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall i 20.3084 .1 2.2000e- 11.9900e- 11.6700e- 11.00OOe- I 11.5000e- 11.5000e- I 11.5000e- 1.5000e- 1 2.3892 I 2.3892 I S.00OOe- 14.00OOe- i 2.4034 I '1 004 1 003 1 003 I 005 1 I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 1 �1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I , I 1 1 005 1 005 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 0) Cr; v CO 0) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 45 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid I 10.4977 •1 0.1132 0.9674 I 0.4117 I 6.1800e- I I 0.0782 I 0.0782 I I 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 11,235.025 I 0.0237 I 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I •1 1 I 1 003 1 1 1 I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 I ;1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 , • 1 1 1 1 I I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park 1 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I 1 • 1 1 I I 1 I ••1 I I I I I I I I , • 1 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J .1 J J -• I J J J -r I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous 10.06209199 6.7000e- 5.7200e- 1 2.4300e- 1 4.0000e- 1 1 4.6000e- 4.6000e- 1 1 4.6000e- 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 1 7.3049 1 1.4000e- 1 1.3000e- 1 7.3483 e I ;1 004 003 1 003 005 1 I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 • 1 1 004 I 004 i I •I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I , • 1 1 1 1 I I : 1 : : 1 : 1 I 1 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I ; 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 . I 1 I 1 1 I •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , • I 1 1 1 I I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office 10.0465836.1 5.0000e- 4.5700e- 1 3.8400e- 1 3.0000e- 1 1 3.5000e- 3.5000e- 1 1 3.5000e- 3.5000e- I 1 5.4804 1 5.4804 1 1.1000e- 1 1.0000e- 1 5.5130 Building I ;: 004 003 1 003 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 004 004 • i 1 1 1 I • 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 , • 1 1 004 1 004 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot 1 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 I ••1 I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J . I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational 1 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 Swimming Pool I ,1 I I I I I I I I . I I 1 I 1 I •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I r 41 J J J J J I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall 10.0203084.1 2.2000e- 1.9900e- 1 1.6700e- 1 1.0000e- 1 1 1.5000e- 1 1.5000e- 1 1 1.5000e- 1.5000e- • 1 2.3892 1 2.3892 1 5.0000e- 1 4.0000e- 1 2.4034 I •1 004 003 003 005 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 • 1 1 005 I 005 i I 9 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I , • 1 1 1 1 1 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 6.0 Area Detail 6.-t Mitigation Measures Area Iv CD co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 46 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 7.0358 i 4.5605 i 23.3317 i 0.0287 i i 0.4677 i 0.4677 i 1 0.4677 : 0.4677 : 0.0000 •5,544.624 i 5,544.624 i 0.1429 i 0.1009 1 5,578.277 9 I I I • I I I I . I •2 • 2 • I • 1 91 I I • I I • I . I 1 Unmitigated • 7.0358 • 4.5605 • 23.3317 • 0.0287 • • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • 0.0000 •5,544.624•5,544.624• 0.1429 • 0.1009 •5,578.277 2 2 1 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.4837 1 1 1 1 i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 i i 0.0000 Coating :1 I .I I I I I ' I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • I • I I 1 v J J J Consumer 9 5.3977 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 • • i 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Products :: • I I I • I • . I • I 1 '� • • 1 • • • • 1 • I • • • i Hearth 9 0.5047 1 4.3129 1 1.8353 1 0.0275 1 1 0.3487 1 0.3487 1 1 0.3487 0.3487 : 0.0000 •5,505.882 1 5,505.882 1 0.1055 1 0.1009 :5,538.601 • • 1 • • • • 1 landscaping 9 0.6498 1 0.2475 1 21.4964 1 1.1400e- 1 1 0.1190 1 0.1190 1 1 0.1190 0.1190 • • 38.7418 1 38.7418 1 0.0374 1 I 39.6760 9 • I I 003 • I I I I • . I 1 I I 1 v 1 • I I • I I I I • . i • • • i (Ti Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 47 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2T Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural • I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i 0.4837 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 Coating •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J a V 1 J J J T I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 Consumer •1 5.3977 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 1 1 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Products :: 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 1 I 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �I J J a J a J J a V I J J J T I I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Hearth •1 0.5047 1 4.3129 1 1.8353 1 0.0275 1 0.3487 1 0.3487 1 1 0.3487 0.3487 : 0.0000 1 5,505.882 1 5,505.882 1 0.1055 1 0.1009 i 5,538.601 9 I I I I I I I I . I 4 I 4 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J a J a J J a V 1 J J J T I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Landscaping •1 0.6498 1 0.2475 1 21.4964 1 1.1400e- 1 0.1190 1 0.1190 1 1 0.1190 0.1190 � 1 38.7418 1 38.7418 1 0.0374 1 i 39.6760 '1 I I I 003 1 I I I I . I I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 I 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste -o 9c5 Operational Offroad IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Days/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 48 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor I Fuel Type 1 Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 1 11.0 Vegetation v w Attachment B Construction Operation 2022 Total Emission Rate Annual Emissions(tons/year) 1 0.13151 Total DPM(Ibs) 799.2306849 Annual Emissions(tons/year) I 0.0429 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 0.720547945 Total DPM(g) 362531.0387 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 0.235068493 Construction Duration(days) 302 Total Construction Days 735 Emission Rate(g/s) I 0.001234111 Total DPM(Ibs) 217.6054795 Emission Rate(g/s) 0.0057087911 Release Height(meters) 3 Total DPM(g) 98705.84548 Release Height(meters) 3 Total Acreage 5.2 Start Date 1 3/5/20221 Total Acreage 1 5.21 Max Horizontal(meters) 205.15 End Date 1/1/2023 Max Horizontal(meters) 205.15 Min Horizontal(meters) 102.58 Construction Days 302 Min Horizontal(meters) 102.58 Initial Vertical Dimension(meters) 1.5 2023 Initial Vertical Dimension(meters) 1.5 Setting Urban Annual Emissions(tons/year) 1 0.2851 Setting Urban Population 176,379 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 1.561643836 Population 176,379 Total Pounds of DPM Construction Duration(days) 365 Start Date 3/5/2022 Total DPM(Ibs) 85.8 Total DPM(Ibs) 570 End Date 3/9/2024 Total DPM(g) 258552 Total Construction Days 735 Start Date 1/1/2023 Total Years of Construction 2.01 End Date 1/1/2024 Total Years of Operation 27.99 Construction Days 365 2024 Annual Emissions(tons/year) 1 0.03121 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 0.170958904 Construction Duration(days) 68 Total DPM(Ibs) 11.62520548 Total DPM(g) 5273.193205 Start Date 1/1/2024 End Date 1 3/9/20241 Construction Days 68 Page 738 Attachment C Start date and time 09/28/21 09:59:53 AERSCREEN 21112 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project AERSCREEN Construction Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project AERSCREEN Construction DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** Emission Rate: 0.571E-02 g/s 0.453E-01 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 205.15 meters 673.06 feet Area Source Width: 102.58 meters 336.55 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 176379 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** Page 739 No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Page 740 Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*) : not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics. . . Page 741 Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 09/28/21 10:01:53 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 Page 742 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 743 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Page 744 Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 Page 745 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 Page 746 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 Page 747 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Page 748 Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 Page 749 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 Page 750 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 751 *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 09/28/21 10:02:04 REFINE started 09/28/21 10:02:04 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 752 *** NONE *** REFINE ended 09/28/21 10:02:05 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 09/28/21 10:02:07 Page 753 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.69621E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76131E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81622E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86250E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91010E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.91461E+01 103.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71251E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50963E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41465E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34837E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29835E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25963E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22878E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20380E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18332E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16593E+01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15140E+01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13882E+01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12804E+01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11859E+01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11024E+01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10291E+01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96428E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90598E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85308E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80534E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 754 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/202 1.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_cone_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76221E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72306E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68740E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65438E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62404E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59613E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57038E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54648E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52418E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50344E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48412E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46607E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44906E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43305E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41800E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40385E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39057E+00 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37798E+00 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36608E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35485E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34421E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33412E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32454E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31543E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30676E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29846E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29054E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 755 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_cone_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28299E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27577E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26885E+00 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26220E+00 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25584E+00 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24973E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24388E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23826E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23287E+00 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22770E+00 1525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22272E+00 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21792E+00 1575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21330E+00 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20884E+00 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20455E+00 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20041E+00 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19641E+00 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19255E+00 1725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18882E+00 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18522E+00 1775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18173E+00 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17836E+00 1825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17510E+00 1850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17194E+00 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17018E+00 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16716E+00 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16423E+00 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 756 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_cone_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16139E+00 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15863E+00 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15596E+00 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15336E+00 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15083E+00 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14838E+00 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14599E+00 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14367E+00 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14141E+00 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13922E+00 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13708E+00 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13500E+00 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13297E+00 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13099E+00 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12907E+00 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12719E+00 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12536E+00 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12358E+00 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12184E+00 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12014E+00 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11848E+00 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11686E+00 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11528E+00 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11373E+00 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11222E+00 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11075E+00 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10931E+00 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 757 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_cone_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10790E+00 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10652E+00 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10517E+00 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10385E+00 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10256E+00 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10130E+00 2775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10006E+00 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98853E-01 2825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97668E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96507E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95370E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94256E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93165E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92095E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91046E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90017E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89009E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88020E-01 3074.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87050E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86098E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85164E-01 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84248E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83348E-01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82465E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81598E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80747E-01 3275.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79911E-01 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 758 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_cone_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79090E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78283E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77491E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76712E-01 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75947E-01 3425.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75195E-01 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74455E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73728E-01 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73014E-01 3525.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72311E-01 3550.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71620E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70940E-01 3600.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70272E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69614E-01 3650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68967E-01 3675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68330E-01 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67703E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67086E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66479E-01 3775.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65881E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65293E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64714E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64143E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63581E-01 3900.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63028E-01 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62482E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61946E-01 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 759 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_A1taCuvee AERSCREEN_Construction max_conc distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61416E-01 4000.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60895E-01 4025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60381E-01 4050.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59875E-01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59376E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58885E-01 4125.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58400E-01 4150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57922E-01 4175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57451E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56986E-01 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56528E-01 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56076E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55631E-01 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55191E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54758E-01 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54330E-01 4375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53908E-01 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53492E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53082E-01 4450.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52676E-01 4475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52276E-01 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51882E-01 4525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51492E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51107E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50728E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50353E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49983E-01 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 760 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_A1taCuvee AERSCREEN_Construction max_conc distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49618E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49257E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48901E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48549E-01 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48202E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47859E-01 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47520E-01 4825.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47185E-01 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46855E-01 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46528E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46205E-01 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45887E-01 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45571E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45260E-01 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 761 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_A1taCuvee AERSCREEN_Construction max_conc distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] Start date and time 09/28/21 10:03:51 AERSCREEN 21112 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project AERSCREEN Operations DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** Emission Rate: 0.123E-02 g/s 0.979E-02 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 205.15 meters 673.06 feet Area Source Width: 102.58 meters 336.55 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 176379 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** No Building Downwash Parameters Page 762 ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Page 763 Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*) : not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics. . . Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Page 764 Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 09/28/21 10:05:47 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Page 765 Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 Page 766 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 Page 767 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 768 *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 769 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 Page 770 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 Page 771 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 Page 772 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 773 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 774 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 09/28/21 10:05:57 REFINE started 09/28/21 10:05:57 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 775 REFINE ended 09/28/21 10:05:59 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 09/28/21 10:06:00 Page 776 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.15048E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16455E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17642E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18642E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19671E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.19769E+01 103.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15400E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11015E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89625E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75298E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64487E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56118E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49449E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44051E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39624E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35865E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32724E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30006E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27675E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25632E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23828E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22244E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20842E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19582E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18439E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17407E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 777 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16475E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15629E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14858E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14144E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13488E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12885E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12329E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11812E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11330E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10882E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10464E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10074E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97063E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93600E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90348E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87290E-01 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84419E-01 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81698E-01 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79126E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76698E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74399E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72218E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70147E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68179E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66305E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64510E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62799E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 778 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61166E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59606E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58111E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56674E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55298E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53978E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52713E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51499E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50334E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49216E-01 1525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48139E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47101E-01 1575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46103E-01 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45140E-01 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44212E-01 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43317E-01 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42454E-01 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41619E-01 1725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40813E-01 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40034E-01 1775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39281E-01 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38552E-01 1825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37846E-01 1850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37163E-01 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36784E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36131E-01 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35498E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 779 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34884E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34288E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33709E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33147E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32601E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32071E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31555E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31054E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30566E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30091E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29629E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29179E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28741E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28314E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27897E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27492E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27096E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26710E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26334E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25967E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25608E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25258E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24917E-01 2525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24583E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24256E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23938E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23626E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 780 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23322E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23024E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22732E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22447E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22168E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21895E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21628E-01 2800.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21366E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21110E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20860E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20614E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20373E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20137E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19906E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19679E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19457E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19239E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19025E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18815E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18610E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18408E-01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18210E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18015E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17824E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17637E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17453E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17272E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 781 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17095E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16920E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16749E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16581E-01 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16415E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16253E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16093E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15936E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15781E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15630E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15480E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15333E-01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15189E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15047E-01 3650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14907E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14769E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14634E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14500E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14369E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14240E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14113E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13988E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13864E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13743E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13623E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13505E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13389E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 782 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13275E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13162E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13051E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12942E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12834E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12728E-01 4125.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12623E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12520E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12418E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12317E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12218E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12121E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12024E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11929E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11836E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11743E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11652E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11562E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11473E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11386E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11299E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11214E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11130E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11047E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10965E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10884E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10804E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 783 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10725E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10647E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10570E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10494E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10419E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10344E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10271E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10199E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10127E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10057E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99870E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99181E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98500E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97827E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 784 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] Attachment D SWAP E Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (949)887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F.Hagemann,P.G.,*C.Hg** Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies Expert Testimony Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Professional Certifications: *Professional Geologist **Certified Hydrogeologist Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Professional Experience: 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and 1 Page 785 Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions held include: Government: • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(1989-1998); • Hydrogeologist,National Park Service,Water Resources Division(1998-2000); • Geologist,U.S.Forest Service (1986-1998) Educational: • Geology Instructor, Golden West College,2010-2104, 2017; • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 -1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 - 1995); Private Sector: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 - present); • Senior Environmental Analyst,Komex H2O Science,Inc. (2000--2003); • Executive Director,Orange Coast Watch(2001-2004); • Geologist,Dames&Moore(1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to 2 Page 786 hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. • Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities. • Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applicationsfor large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination inSouthern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimonyby the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronologyof MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronologyof perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinkingwater treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. • Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an 3 Page 787 operating school in LosAngeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation withclients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, an Orange County-based not-for-profit water-quality organization,led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities included: • Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, andgroundwater. • Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S.EPA workgroups,including the SuperfundGroundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used 4 Page 788 analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance forthe protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliancewith Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote"part B"permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality,including the following: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military,mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone andOlympic National Park. • Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. 5 Page 789 • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personalwatercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation-wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency,Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinkingwater supplies. • Shaping EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improving the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers innegotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process. • Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service,led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed fortimber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included: • Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large 6 Page 790 hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervising year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifer tests. • Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University,held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. • Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony,Reports,Papers and Presentations: Hagemann,M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the PublicEnvironmental Law Conference, Eugene,Oregon. Hagemann,M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.EPA Region 9,San Francisco, California. Hagemann,M.F.,2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making andPublic Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F.,2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann,M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins atschools in Southern California,Los Angeles. Brown,A.,Farrow,J.,Gray,A. and Hagemann,M.,2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBEReleases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference,National 7 Page 791 Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix,AZ(served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann,M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to atribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann,M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives, Parker,AZ. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking WaterSupplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann,M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invitedpresentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann,M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to ameeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to AddressImpacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in 8 Page 792 Groundwater(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublishedreport. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.Unpublished report. Hagemann,M.F.,2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground StorageTanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal WatercraftUsage.Water Resources Division, National Park Service,Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George WrightSociety Biannual Meeting,Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA SuperfundGroundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting,Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval AirStation, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. 9 Page 793 Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Airand Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac to r i z a t i o n and Cl can up a t Closing Military Basesin California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL-contaminated Groundwater.California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings,Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting,v.35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,2009-2011. 10 Page 794 Attachment C SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE S AiA P E Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and 525 Broadway Avenue,Suite 203 Litigation Support for the Environment Santa Monica,California 90401 Attn:Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Tel:(310)795-2335 Fax:(310)434-0011 Email:prosenfeld@swape.com Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport&Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment And Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D.Soil Chemistry,University of Washington, 1999.Dissertation on VOC filtration. M.S.Environmental Science,U.C.Berkeley, 1995.Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A.Environmental Studies,U.C.Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld is the environmental chemist at Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE).His focus is the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, risk assessment, and ecological restoration. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources as they relate to human and ecological health. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing, petroleum, MtBE and fuel oxygenates, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, perchlorate, heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, and odor. Significant projects performed by Dr.Rosenfeld include the following: Litigation Support Client: Nexsen Pruet,LLC(Charleston,South Carolina) Serving as expert in chlorine exposure in railroad tank car accident where approximately 120,000 pounds of chlorine were released. Client:Buzbee Law Firm(Houston,Texas) Serving as expert in catalyst release and refinery emissions cases against BP Texas City. One case settled regarding worker exposure, but ongoing litigation remains involving —21,500 plaintiffs who have health claims and are seeking remediation from chemicals released from BP facility. Client: Girardi Keese(Los Angeles,California) SWAPE 1 Rosenfeld CV Page 795 Serving as expert investigating hydrocarbon exposure and property damage for —600 individuals and —280 properties in Carson,California,where homes were constructed above a large tank farm formerly owned by Shell. Client: Brent Coon Law Firm(Cleveland,Ohio) Served as expert calculating an environmental exposure to benzene, PAHs, and VOCs from a Chevron Refinery in Hooven Ohio. Ran AERMOD to calculate cumulative dose. Client: Girardi Keese(Los Angeles,California) Served as expert testifying on hydrocarbon exposure to a woman who worked on a fuel barge operated by Chevron. Demonstrated that the plaintiff was exposed to excessive amounts of benzene. Client: Lundy Davis(Lake Charles,Louisiana) Served as consulting expert on an oil field case representing the lease holder of a contaminated oil field. Conducted field work evaluating oil field contamination in Sulfur,Louisiana. Property is owned by Conoco Phillips,but leased by Yellow Rock,a small oil firm. Client: Cox Cox Filo(Lake Charles,Louisiana) Serving as testifying expert on multimillion gallon oil spill in Lake Charles which occurred on June 19, 2006, resulting in hydrocarbon vapor exposure to hundreds of workers and residents. Prepared air model and calculated dose. Demonstrated that petroleum odor alone can result in significant health harms. Client: Cotchett Pitre&McCarthy(San Francisco,California) Served as testifying expert representing homeowners who unknowingly purchased homes built on an old oil field in Santa Maria,California.Properties have high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils resulting in diminished property value. Client:Baron& Budd(Dallas,Texas)&Weitz&Luxenberg(New York,NY) Serving as consulting expert in MTBE Federal Multi District Litigation(MDL) in New York. Consolidated ground water data,created maps for test cases,constructed damage model,evaluated taste and odor threshold levels. Client: Law Offices Of Anthony Liberatore P.C.(Los Angeles,California) Served as testifying expert representing individuals who rented homes on the Inglewood Oil Field in California. Plaintiffs were exposed to hydrocarbon contaminated water and air, and experienced health harms associated with the petroleum exposure. Client: Baron&Budd P.C.Dallas Texas and Korein Tillery(Madison,County) Illinois, Private Wells Analysis: Coordinated data acquisition and GIS analysis evaluating private well proximity to leaking underground storage tanks to support litigation noting that private well owners should be compensated for MTBE testing. Client: Orange County District Attorney(Orange County,California) SWAPE 2 Rosenfeld CV Page 796 Coordinated a review of 143 ARCO gas stations in Orange County to assist the District Attorney's prosecution of CCR Title 23 and California Health and Safety Code violators. Client: Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) Serving as testifying expert in a health effects case against ABC Coke/Drummond Co for polluting a community with PAHs,benzene,particulate matter,heavy metals,and coke oven emissions. Created air dispersions models and conducted attic dust sampling,exposure modeling,and risk assessment for plaintiffs. Client: Masry Vitatoe (Westlake Village, CA), Engstrom Lipscomb Lack (Los Angeles, CA) & Baron & Budd(Dallas Texas). Served as consulting expert in Proposition 65 lawsuit filed against the major oil companies for benzene and toluene releases from gas stations and refineries which contaminated groundwater. Settlement included over $110 million dollars in injunctive relief. Client: Tommy Franks Law Firm (Austin,Texas) Served as expert evaluating groundwater contamination which resulted from the hazardous waste injection program and negligent actions of Morton Thiokol and Rohm Hass. Interpreted drinking water contamination and community exposure. Client: Baron& Budd (Dallas Texas)and Sher Leff(San Francisco,California) Serving as consulting expert for several California cities which have filed defective product cases against Dow Chemical and Shell for 1,2,3-trichloropropane groundwater contamination. Generated maps showing capture zones of impacted wells for various municipalities. Client:Baron& Budd(Dallas Texas)and Korein Tillery(Madison County,Illinois) Serving as consulting expert for a Class Action defective product Atrazine claim filed in Madison County, Illinois against Syngenta and five other manufactures. The plaintiff class representative is Holiday Shores Water System which is evaluating health issues associated with atrazine, costing out treatment for filtration of public drinking water supplies. Client:Weitz&Luxenberg(New York,NY) Serving as expert on Property Damage and Nuisance claims resulting from emissions from the Countywide Landfill in Ohio. The landfill had an exothermic reaction or fire resulting from aluminum dross dumping,and the EPA fined the landfill$10,000,000 dollars. Client: Baron& Budd(Dallas Texas) Serving as consulting expert for a groundwater contamination case in Pensacola Florida where fluorinated compounds contaminated wells operated by Escambia County. Client: Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) SWAPE 3 Rosenfeld CV Page 797 Serving as an expert on property damage,medical monitoring and toxic tort claims that have been filed on behalf of over 12,000 plaintiffs who were exposed to PCBs and dioxins/furans resulting from emissions from Monsanto and Cerro Copper's operations in East Sauget,Illinois. Client:Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) Served as an expert on groundwater case when Exxon Mobil and Helena Chemical released ethylene dichloride into groundwater resulting in a large plume. Prepared report on the appropriate treatment technology and cost,and flaws with the proposed on site remedy. Client: Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) Serving as an expert on air emissions released when a Bartlo Packaging Incorporated facility in West Helena Arkansas exploded resulting in community exposure to pesticides and smoke from combustion of pesticides. Client: Omara&Padilla(San Diego,Califorinia) Served as testifying expert on nuisance case against Nutro Dogfood Company that constructed a large dog food processing facility in the middle of a residential community in Victorville California with no odor control devices. The facility has undergone significant modifications including installation of a regenerative thermal oxidizer. Client: Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) Serving as an expert on property damage and medical monitoring claims that have been filed against International Paper resulting from chemical emissions from facilities located in Bastrop Louisiana, Prattville, Alabama, and Georgetown South Carolina. Client: Estep and Shafer(West Virginia) Served as expert running various air models to calculate acid emissions dose to residents resulting from emissions from a coal fired power plant in West Virginia. Client: Watts Law Firm(Austin,Texas),Woodfill Pressler(Houston,Texas),Woska&Ass.(Oklahoma) Served as testifying expert on community and worker exposure to CCA, creosote,PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a BNSF and Kopper's Facility in Somerville,Texas. Conducted field sampling,risk assessment,dose assessment and air modelling to quantify exposure to workers and community members. Client: Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) Served as expert regarding community exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a Louisiana Pacific wood treatment facility in Florala, Alabama. Conducted blood sampling and environmental sampling to determine environmental exposure to dioxins/furans and PAHs. Client: Sanders Law(Colorado Springs,Co)and Vamvoras&Schwartzberg(Lake Charles,Louisiana) Serving as expert calculating chemical exposure to over 500 workers from large ethylene dichloride spill in Lake Charles,Louisiana,at the Conoco Phillips Refinery. Client: Baron&Budd P.C.(Dallas,Texas) SWAPE 4 Rosenfeld CV Page 798 Served as consulting expert in a defective product lawsuit against Dow Agroscience focusing on Clopyralid, a recalcitrant herbicide that damaged numerous compost facilities across the United States. Client: Sullivan Papain Block McGrath&Cannavo(NY,NY)and The Cochran Firm(Dothan,MS) Served as expert regarding community exposure to metals, PAHs PCBs, and dioxins/furans from the burning of Ford Paint Sludge and municipal solid waste in Ringwood,New Jersey. Client:Rose,Klein Marias(Los Angeles,CA) Serving as expert in Proposition 65 cases, each one citing an individual facility in the Port of Oakland. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000,hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute. Client:Rose,Klein Marias(Los Angeles,CA) Serving as expert in 55 Proposition 65 cases, each one citing an individual facility in the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach as the defendant. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000,hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute. Client: Graham&Associates(Calabasas,CA) Served as expert in a case in which General Motors is the plaintiff and BP Arco is the defendant. Conducted air models to demonstrate that sulfur emissions from the BP Arco facility formed sulfuric acid,destroying paint on over 350 automobiles. Client:Rose,Mien Marias (Los Angeles,CA)and Environmental Law Foundation(San Francisco,CA) Served as expert in a Proposition 65 case against potato chip manufacturers. Conducted an analysis of several brands of potato chips for acrylamide concentration and found that all samples exceeded Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Levels. Client: Gonzales&Robinson(Westlake Village,CA) Served as testifying expert in a toxic tort case against Chevron(Ortho)for allowing a community to be contaminated with lead arsenate pesticide. Created air dispersion models, soil vadose zone transport models, and evaluated bioaccumulation of lead arsenate in food. Client:Environment Now(Santa Monica,CA) Served as expert for Environment Now to convince the State of California to file a nuisance claim against the automobile manufactures to recover MediCal damages from expenditures on asthma-related health care costs. Client: Trutanich Michell(Long Beach,California) Served as expert representing San Pedro Boat Works in the Port of Los Angeles. Prepared air dispersion,particulate air dispersion, and storm water discharge models to demonstrate that Kaiser Bulk Loading is responsible for copper concentrate accumulating in the bay sediment. Client: Azurix of North America(Fort Myers,Florida) SWAPE 5 Rosenfeld CV Page 799 Provided expert opinions, reports and research pertaining to a proposed County Ordinance requiring biosolids applicators to measure VOC and odor concentrations at application sites'boundaries. Client: MCP Polyurethane(Pittsburg,Kansas) Provided expert opinions and reports regarding metal-laden landfill runoff that damaged a running track by causing the reversion of the polyurethane due to its catalytic properties. Risk Assessment And Modeling Client:ABT-Haskell (San Bernardino,California) Prepared air dispersion model for a proposed state-of-the-art enclosed compost facility. Developed odor detection limits to predict 1, 8,and 24-hour off-site concentrations of sulfur, ammonia,and amine as well as prepared a traffic analysis. Client: Jefferson PRP Group(Los Angeles,California) Evaluated exposure pathways for chlorinated solvents and hexavalent chromium for human health risk assessment of Los Angeles Academy (formerly Jefferson New Middle School) operated by Los Angeles Unified School District. Client: Covanta(Susanville California) Prepared human health risk assessment for Covanta Energy focusing on agricultural worker exposure to caustic fertilizer. Client: CIWMB (Sacramento California) Used dispersion models to estimate traveling distance and VOC concentrations downwind from a composting facility for the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Client: Carboquimeca(Bogota,Columbia) Evaluated exposure pathways for human health risk assessment for a confidential client focusing on significant concentrations of arsenic and chlorinated solvents contaminating groundwater used for drinking water. Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team(Treasure Island,California) Used Johnson-Ettinger model to estimate indoor air PCB concentrations and compared estimated values with empirical data collected in homes. Negotiated action levels with DTSC. Client: San Diego State University(San Diego California) Measured CO2 flux from soils amended with different quantities of biosolids compost at Camp Pendleton to determine CO2 credit values for coastal sage under fertilized and non-fertilized conditions. Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team(MCAS Tustin,California) Evaluated cumulative risk of a multiple pathway scenario with a child resident and a construction worker's exposure to air and soil via particulate and vapor inhalation,incidental soil ingestion,and dermal contact with soil. SWAPS 6 Rosenfeld CV Page 800 Client: MCAS Miramar(San Diego,California) Evaluated exposure pathways of metals in soil, comparing site data to background data. Risk assessment incorporated multiple pathway scenarios assuming child resident and construction worker exposure to particulate and vapor inhalation,soil ingestion,and dermal soil contact. Client: Naval Weapons Station(Seal Beach,California) Used a multiple pathway model to generate dust emission factors from automobiles driving on dirt roads. Calculated bioaccumulation of metals,PCBs,dioxin congeners and pesticides to estimate human and ecological risk. Client: King County,Douglas County(Washington State) Measured PMI() and PM2.5 emissions from windblown soil treated with biosolids and a polyacrylamide polymer in Douglas County Washington. Used Pilat Mark V impactor for measurement and compared data to EPA particulate regulations. Client: King County,Seattle,Washington. Conducted emission inventory for several compost and wastewater facilities comparing VOC,particulate, and fungi concentrations to NIOSH values estimating risk to workers and individuals at neighboring facilities. Air Pollution Investigation and Remediation Client: Republic Landfill(Santa Clarita,CA) Managed a field investigation of odor around a landfill during 30+ events. Using hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution-to-threshold values,and odor character to evaluate odor sources and character and intensity. Client: California Biomass(Victorville,CA) Managed a field investigation of odor around landfill during 9+events. Using hedonic tone,butanol scale,dilution- to-threshold values,and odor character to evaluate odor sources,character and intensity. Client: ABT-Haskell(Redlands,California) Assisted in permitting a compost facility that will be completely enclosed with a complex scrubbing system using acid scrubbers,base scrubbers,biofilters,heat exchangers and chlorine to reduce VOC emissions by 99 percent. Client: Synagro(Corona,California) Designed and monitored 30-foot by 20-foot by 6-foot biofilter for VOC control from an industrial composting facility in Corona,California,reducing VOC emissions by 99 percent. Client: Jeff Gage,(Tacoma,Washington) Conducted emission inventory at industrial compost facility using GC/MS analyses for VOCs. Evaluated effectiveness of VOC and odor control systems and estimated human health risk. SWAPE 7 Rosenfeld CV Page 801 Client: Daishowa America(Port Angeles Mill,Washington) Analyzed industrial paper sludge and ash for VOCs, heavy metals and nutrients to develop a land application program.Metals were compared to federal guidelines to determine maximum allowable land application rates. Client: Jeff Gage(Puyallup Washington) Measured effectiveness of biofilters at composting facility and ran EPA dispersion models to estimate traveling distance of odor and human health risk from exposure to volatile organics. Surface Water, Groundwater, and Wastewater Investigation/Remediation Client: Confidential (Downey,California) Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of 1,000 foot TCE plume associated with a metal finishing shop. Client: Confidential (West Hollywood,California) Designed soil vapor extraction system that is currently being installed for confidential client. Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of TCE plume associated with dry cleaning. Client: Synagro Technologies(Sacramento,California) Managed groundwater investigation to determine if biosolids application impacted salinity and nutrient concentrations in groundwater. Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team(Treasure Island,California) Assisted in the design and remediation of PCB, chlorinated solvent, hydrocarbon and lead contaminated groundwater and soil on Treasure Island.Negotiated screening levels with DTSC and Water Board. Assisted in the preparation of FSP/QAPP,RI/FS,and RAP documents and assisted in CEQA document preparation. Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team(MCAS Tustin,California) Assisted in the design of groundwater monitoring systems for chlorinated solvents at Tustin MCAS. Contributed to the preparation of FS for groundwater treatment. Client: MCP(Walnut,California) Conducted forensic surface water and sediment sampling. Designed and conducted bench scale laboratory experiments. Demonstrated that metal and organic contaminants in storm water and sediment from landfill flooded and chemically compromised a polyurethane track. Client: Mission Cleaning Facility(Salinas California) Prepared a RAP and cost estimate for using an oxygen releasing compound (ORC) and molasses to oxidize diesel fuel in soil and groundwater at Mission Cleaning in Salinas. SWAPE 8 Rosenfeld CV Page 802 Client: King County,Washingon Established and monitored experimental plots at a US EPA Superfund Site in wetland and upland mine tailings contaminated with zinc and lead in Smelterville, Idaho. Used organic matter and pH adjustment for wetland remediation and erosion control. Client: City of Redmond(Richmond,Washington) Collected storm water from compost-amended and fertilized turf to measure nutrients in urban runoff. Evaluated effectiveness of organic matter-lined detention ponds on reduction of peak flow during storm events. Drafted compost amended landscape installation guidelines to promote storm water detention and nutrient runoff reduction. Client: City of Seattle(Seattle,Washington) Measured VOC emissions from Renton wastewater treatment plant in Washington. Ran GC/MS, dispersion models, and sensory panels to characterize,quantify,control and estimate risk from VOCs. Client: Plumas County(Quincy,California) Installed wetland to treat contaminated water containing 1%copper in an EPA Superfund site. Revegetated 10 acres of acidic and metal laden sand dunes resulting from hydraulic mining. Installed and monitored piezometers in wetland estimating metal loading. Client: Adams Egg Farm(St.Kitts,West Indies) Designed, constructed, and maintained 3 anaerobic digesters at Springfield Egg Farm, St. Kitts. Digesters treated chicken excrement before effluent discharged into sea.Chicken waste was converted into methane cooking gas. Client: BLM(Kremmling Colorado) Collected water samples for monitoring program along upper stretch of the Colorado River. Rafted along river, protecting water quality by digging and repairing latrines. Soil Science and Restoration Projects Client: Kinder Morgan(San Diego County California) Designed and monitored the restoration of a 110-acre project on Camp Pendleton along a 26-mile pipeline.Managed crew of 20, planting coastal sage, riparian, wetland, native grassland, and marsh ecosystems. Negotiated with the CDFW concerning species planting list and success standards. Client: NAVY BRAC(Orote Landfill,Guam) Designed and monitored pilot landfill cap mimicking limestone forest. Measured different species' root-penetration into landfill cap.Plants were used to evapotranspirate water,reducing water leaching through soil profile. Client: LA Sanitation District Puente Hills Landfill(Whittier,California) Monitored success of upland and wetland mitigation at Puente Hills Landfill operated by Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles.Negotiated with the Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG to obtain an early sign-off. SWAPE 9 Rosenfeld CV Page 803 Client: City of Escondido(Escondido California) Designed, managed, installed, and monitored a 20-acre coastal sage scrub restoration project at Kit Carson Park, Escondido,California. Client: Home Depot(Encinitas,California) Designed, managed, installed and monitored a 15-acre coastal sage scrub and wetland restoration project at Home Depot in Encinitas,California. Client: Alvarado Water Filtration Plant(San Diego,California) Planned,installed and monitored 2-acre riparian and coastal sage scrub mitigation in San Diego California. Client: Monsanto and James River Corporation(Clatskanie Oregon) Served as a soil scientist on a 50,000-acre hybrid poplar farm. Worked on genetically engineering study of Poplar trees to see if glyphosate resistant poplar clones were economically viable. Client: World Wildlife Fund(St.Kitts,West Indies) Managed 2-year biodiversity study, quantifying and qualifying the various flora and fauna in St. Kitts' expanding volcanic rainforest.Collaborated with skilled botanists,ornithologists and herpetologists. Publications Rosenfeld,P.E. &Feng,L.(2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste,Amsterdam:Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry,Amsterdam:Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2011). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget,IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences 4(2011):113-125. Feng,L.,Wu, C., Tam,L., Sutherland,A.J., Clark,J.J.,Rosenfeld,P.E., (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States.Journal of Environmental Health 73(6):34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries,Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry,Amsterdam:Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C.,Tam,L., Clark,J.,Rosenfeld,P. (2009). `Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States', in Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds.,Air Pollution XVII: SWAPE 10 Rosenfeld CV Page 804 Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modelling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution,Tallinn,Estonia.20-22 July,2009, Southampton,Boston.WIT Press. Tam L.K..,Wu C.D.,Clark J.J. and Rosenfeld,P.E.(2008)A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin(TCDD)Toxicity Equivalency Quotients(TEQ)In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities.Organohalogen Compounds,Volume 70(2008)page 002254. Tam L.K..,Wu C.D.,Clark J.J. and Rosenfeld,P.E.(2008)Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust:A Review. Organohalogen Compounds,Volume 70(2008) page 000527. Hensley,A.R.A. Scott,J.J.J. Clark,P.E.Rosenfeld(2007)"Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility"Environmental Research. 105,pp 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007) "The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities"—Water Science&Technology 55(5): 345-357. Rosenfeld,P.E., M. Suffet.(2007)"The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water,Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment"Water Science&Technology 55(5): 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E., (2007) "Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water,and Air in American Cities,"Elsevier Publishing,Boston Massachusetts. Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) "Anatomy Of An Odor Wheel" Water Science and Technology, In Press. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) "The use of an odor wheel classification for evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities."Water Science And Technology,In Press. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) "Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility." The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOXIN2006, August 21 — 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Rosenfeld,P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash",Water Science and Technology,Vol.49,No. 9.pp. 171-178. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark J. J. and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Value of and Urban Odor Wheel." (2004). WEFTEC 2004. New Orleans,October 2-6,2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids"Water Science and Technology.Vol.49,No. 9.pp 193-199. SWAPE 11 Rosenfeld CV Page 805 Rosenfeld,P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash",Water Science and Technology,Vol.49,No. 9.pp. 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004) Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows,Static Pile and Biofilter.Water Environment Research.76(4): 310-315 JUL-AUG 2004. Rosenfeld,P.E.,Grey,M., (2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium. Batelle Conference Orlando Florida.June 2 and June 6,2003. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. 2002. "Controlling Odors Using High Carbon Wood Ash." Biocycle, March 2002,Page 42. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). "Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento, California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS-6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. April 2002. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air pollution.Vol. 127 Nos. 1-4,pp. 173-191 Rosenfeld,P.E.,and Henry C. L.,2000. Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29:1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. 2001. Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity.Water Environment Research.73: 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants Water Environment Research,73: 388-392. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., 2001. High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research.Volume 131 No. 1-4,pp.247-262 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings.Bellevue Washington. Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond,Washington State. P.Rosenfeld. 1992. The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail.Heritage Magazine of St.Kitts,Vol. 3 No.2. P. Rosenfeld. 1993. High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, Vol. 7,No. 1, 1993. SWAPE 12 Rosenfeld CV Page 806 P.Rosenfeld. 1992. British West Indies, St.Kitts. Surf Report,April issue. P.Rosenfeld. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil.Doctoral Thesis.University of Washington College of Forest Resources. P. Rosenfeld. 1994. Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees On Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County,California. P. Rosenfeld. 1991. How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World.Bachelors Thesis.University of California. England Environmental Agency, 2002. Landfill Gas Control Technologies. Publishing Organization Environment Agency,Rio House,Waterside Drive,Aztec West,Almondsbury BRISTOL,BS32 4UD Presentations Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. "Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water."Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston,MA,June 20-23,2010. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. "Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois."Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston,MA,June 20-23,2010. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009) "Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States" Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23,2009.Tuscon,AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009) "Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams(AFFF)at Airports in the United States"Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23,2009.Tuscon,AZ. Rosenfeld,P. E. (2007)"Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility"Platform Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts,Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) "The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant" Platform Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water,October 15-18,2007.University of Massachusetts,Amherst MA. SWAPE 13 Rosenfeld CV Page 807 Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) "Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions"Poster Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18,2007.University of Massachusetts,Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. "Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP)" — Platform Presentation at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS)Annual Meeting,San Diego,CA,3/2007 Rosenfeld P. E. "Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama"— Platform Presentation at the AEHS Annual Meeting, San Diego,CA,3/2007 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) "Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility." APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition, Boston Massachusetts.November 4 to 8th,2006. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals." Mealey's C8/PFOA Science,Risk&Litigation Conference"October 24,25. The Rittenhouse Hotel,Philadelphia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19.Hilton Hotel,Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP." PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19.Hilton Hotel in Irvine,California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs."Mealey's Groundwater Conference. September 26,27.Ritz Carlton Hotel,Marina Del Ray,California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals." International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. June 7,8. Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel,Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Rate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals". 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. July 21-22, 2005. Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor,Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation." 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. July 21-22,2005.Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor,Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology,A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. May 5-6,2004.Congress Plaza Hotel,Chicago Illinois. SWAPE 14 Rosenfeld CV Page 808 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., 2004. Perchlorate Toxicology. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. March 7th,2004.Pheonix Arizona. Hagemann,M.F., Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D. and Rob Hesse, 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives,Parker,AZ. Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D.A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association.Radison Hotel,Sacramento,California.April 7,2004. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.February 20-21,2003.Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Marriott Hotel.Anaheim California.February 6-7,2003. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Sacramento California.October 23,2002 Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain.October 7- 10. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association.Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association.Vancouver Washington. September 22-24. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Indianapolis, Maryland. November 11-14. Rosenfeld. P.E. 2000. Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Anaheim California. September 16,2000. Rosenfeld. P. E. 2000. Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. October 16, 2000.Ocean Shores, California Rosenfeld, P. E. 2000. Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Sacramento California. SWAPE 15 Rosenfeld CV Page 809 Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings.Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld,P.E., and C.L. Henry. 1999. An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil.Brown and Caldwell, Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest Lake Chelan,Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. 1997. Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America,Anaheim California. Professional History Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise(SWAPE);2003 to present;Founding And Managing Partner UCLA School of Public Health;2007 to present;Lecturer(Asst Res) UCLA School of Public Health;2003 to 2006;Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program;2002-2004;Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment,2001-2002;Research Associate Komex H2O Science,2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association,2002-2004;Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001;Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego,2000-2001;Remediation Project Manager Ogden(now Amec), San Diego,2000-2000;Remediation Project Manager Bechtel,San Diego,California, 1999—2000;Risk Assessor King County,Seattle, 1996— 1999; Scientist James River Corp.,Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber,Davenport,California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp.,California and USFS,Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St.Kitts,West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Bureau of Land Management,Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist SWAPE 16 Rosenfeld CV Page 810 Teaching Experience UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 2010) Teach Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focuses on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course In Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002.Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board,April and May,2001.Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego,Ventura,and San Francisco.Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5 2002 Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,Organic Soil Amendments,and Soil Stability. U.C.Berkeley,Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost.2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils.2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association,Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. SWAPS 17 Rosenfeld CV Page 811 Kellogg Foundation,Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St.Kitts in West Indies. 1993. Cases that Dr. Rosenfeld Provided Deposition or Trial Testimony In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina,County of Aiken David Anderson,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Norfolk Southern Corporation,et al.,Defendants. Case Number:2007-CP-02-1584 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Drummond Company Inc.,et al.,Defendants Civil action No.CV 2008-2076 In the Ninth Judicial District Court,Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana Roger Price,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Roy O.Martin,L.P.,et al.,Defendants. Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G In the United States District Court,Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Citgo Petroleum Corporation,et al.,Defendants. Case Number 2:07CV1052 In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Carolyn Baker,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Chevron Oil Company,et al.,Defendants. Case Number 1:05 CV 227 In the Fourth Judicial District Court,Parish of Calcasieu,State of Louisiana Craig Steven Arabie,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Citgo Petroleum Corporation,et al.,Defendants. Case Number 07-2738 G In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court,Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Leon B.Brydels,Plaintiffs,vs. Conoco,Inc.,et al.,Defendants. Case Number 2004-6941 Division A In the District Court of Tarrant County,Texas, 153`d Judicial District Linda Faust,Plaintiff,vs.Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company,Witco Chemical Corporation A/K/A Witco Corporation,Solvents and Chemicals,Inc. and Koppers Industries,Inc.,Defendants. Case Number 153-212928-05 In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino Leroy Allen,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Nutro Products,Inc.,a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,Defendants. John Loney,Plaintiff,vs.James H.Didion, Sr.;Nutro Products,Inc.;DOES 1 through 20,inclusive, Defendants. Case Number VCVVSO44671 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama,Northern Division James K.Benefield,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.International Paper Company,Defendant. Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley,Plaintiffs,vs.Peter T.Hoss,as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust; Plains Exploration&Production Company,a Delaware corporation;Rayne Water Conditioning,Inc.,a SWAPE 18 Rosenfeld CV Page 812 California corporation;and DOES 1 through 100,Defendants. Case Number SC094173 In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch Clifford and Shirley Adelhelm,et al.,all individually,Plaintiffs,vs.Unocal Corporation,a Delaware Corporation;Union Oil Company of California,a California corporation;Chevron Corporation,a California corporation;ConocoPhillips,a Texas corporation;Kerr-McGee Corporation,an Oklahoma corporation;and DOES 1 though 100,Defendants. Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299) In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas,Eastern District of Arkansas Harry Stephens Farms,Inc,and Harry Stephens,individual and as managing partner of Stephens Partnership,Plaintiffs,vs.Helena Chemical Company,and Exxon Mobil Corp.,successor to Mobil Chemical Co.,Defendants. Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM) In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,Texarkana Division Rhonda Brasel,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100,Defendants. Civil Action Number 07-4037 In The Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Cruz Constance Acevedo,et al.Plaintiffs Vs.California Spray Company,et al.Defendants Case No CV 146344 In the District Court of Texas 21 St Judicial District of Burleson County Dennis Davis,Plaintiff vs.Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company,Defendant. Case Number 25,151 SWAPE 19 Rosenfeld CV Page 813 ATTACHMENT 2 LOZ EAU DRURYLLP T 510.835.4200 1939 Harrison Street,Ste.150 www.lozeaudrury.con F 510.836.4205 Oakland,CA 94612 • victona@lazeaudrury,cam ,.....iiiiiii Via Email April 13, 2022 Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 vincentacuna@cityarc.us Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us Re: Comment on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-00440) Dear Mr. Acuna and Planning Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER")regarding the Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("RIS/MND")prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project(DRC2020-0440), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction, use, and maintenance of a 260-unit apartment community, located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga("Project"). SAFER submitted comments on the original Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") on October 1, 2021. SAFER's October comment was prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE"). Based on these expert reviews, we concluded that the IS/MND failed as an informational document, and that there was a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we requested that the City of Rancho Cucamonga("City")prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code ("PRC") section 21000, et seq. Page 815 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND April 13, 2022 Page 3 of 31 The City prepared and published a Notice of Intent("NOI")to adopt the RIS/MND on February 9, 2022. According to the NOI, the City recirculated the IS/MND for the proposed Project to clarify changes that have risen during or since the public review period. After reviewing the RIS/MND, we also conclude the RIS/MND also fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request once more that the City prepare an EIR for the Project pursuant to CEQA, PRC section 21000, et seq. This supplemental comment on the RIS/MND has been prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm SWAPE. Mr. Offerman's comment on the original IS/MND and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Mr. Smallwood's comment is attached as Exhibit B hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. SWAPE's comment and the consultants' curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. SAFER's October 1, 2021 comments on the original IS/MND are attached as Exhibit D hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. DISCUSSION I. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the RIS/MND and relevant documents regarding the proposed Project's indoor air emissions, and concluded that his Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (September 24, 2021) (Exhibit A)regarding the IS/MND, submitted by SAFER on October 1, 2021, still apply to the RIS/MND. Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A. Even after receipt of SAFER and Mr. Offerman's October 1, 2021 comments on the IS/MND, which identified the Project's significant health risk impact from its indoor air emissions from formaldehyde, the RIS/MND does not evaluate the human health risks as a result of the Project's formaldehyde emissions. As SAFER's previous comments noted, the failure to address the Project's formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Ass v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Ca1.4th 369, 386. Page 816 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND April 13, 2022 Page 3 of 31 Because Mr. Offermann's expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts. II. The RIS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife. After review of the RIS/MND, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have significant impacts on several special status species. An EIR is required to mitigate these impacts. Dr. Smallwood's conclusions were informed by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood's site visit in September 2021. Ms. Smallwood visited the site of the proposed Project on Dr. Smallwood's behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on September 4, 2021. Dr. Smallwood's expert comments on the IS/MND and curriculum vitae are included as Exhibit A in SAFER's October 1, 2021 comments attached hereto as Exhibit D. Dr. Smallwood's expert comments on the RIS/MND are included at Exhibit B. A. The wildlife baseline relied upon by the RIS/MND is still woefully inadequate. Wildlife biologist Dr. Smallwood's review of the impacts to wildlife from the Project concluded that the Project may have significant impacts on several special-status species. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts. Dr. Smallwood asserts that the RIS/MND does an"only" "slightly better job of characterizing baseline conditions of the site,"because it includes lists of species that were detected during the City's only reconnaissance-level survey that the IS/MND originally omitted. (Ex. B, p. 1.)According to Dr. Smallwood: "what was not improved, and what warranted an improvement, was a follow-up survey(or multiple surveys) at an appropriate time of day for wildlife." (Ex. B,p. 1.) Dr. Smallwood further explains: The RIS/MND ignores Noriko's survey results and what they mean to the characterization of the existing environmental setting and the likelihoods of special-status species occurrences. The RIS/MND misleadingly reports, "no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey." This reporting is misleading not only because it ignores the special-status species that Noriko detected,but also attempts to pass off the AECOM survey effort as sufficient for detecting special- status species. It was not. No reconnaissance-level survey effort is capable of detecting all the species that use a site, including those that use it seasons and times of day other than when the reconnaissance-level survey was performed. Furthermore, no biologist is perfect at detecting the species of wildlife that are available to be detected at the time of the survey. For these reasons, to characterize the wildlife community at a site, multiple methods and multiple surveys are needed. (Ex. B,pp. 2-3.) Page 817 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND April 13, 2022 Page 3 of 31 Hence, RIS/MND's baseline for biological impacts continues to be inadequate, incomplete, and understates the biological values at the Project site. (See, Ex. B, pp. 1-5.)Dr. Smallwood concludes that: "A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately assess occurrence likelihoods of special-status species as part of the characterization of the current environmental setting." (Ex. B,p. 6.) In conclusion, the RIS/MND's failure to adequately evaluate the significance of the impacts to special-status species of wildlife violates CEQA. Thus, the Project requires an EIR to properly mitigate wildlife impacts of the Project. B. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity. Neither the original IS/MND nor the RIS/MND assess the lost breeding capacity of birds that would result from the Project. Instead, the RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood's comments regarding habitat loss to breeding birds. (Ex. B, p. 6.) Specifically, Dr. Smallwood's prediction that the proposed Project"would deny Californian's of 116 birds per year." (Ex. B, p. 6.) This potential loss of birds every year following construction of the Project easily qualifies as a significant, unmitigated impact that has not been analyzed. An EIR is required to fully analyze the Project's impact on lost breeding capacity, and to mitigate that impact. C. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife movement. The RIS/MND, like the IS/MND, fails to address impacts to wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor. (Ex. B,pp. 6-7.) In doing so, the RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood's "comments regarding wildlife movement and how, in its analysis, the RIS/MND applies a false CEQA standard centered on whether the site is part of a wildlife movement corridor." (Ex. B, pp. 6-7.)As Dr. Smallwood points out, "[t]he CEQA standard does not rely on whether the site is part of a corridor." (Ex. B,p. 7.) Therefore, the RIS/MND improperly dismisses the Project's potential to significantly impact wildlife movement. Such impacts to wildlife movement from the Project's construction and operation should be addressed in an EIR and mitigated accordingly. D. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife by window collisions. Dr. Smallwood's comments conclude that the Project will have a significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. (See, Ex. B, p. 7.) But neither the IS/MND nor the RIS/MND express any concern about bird-window collision impacts, nor do they propose any mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for such impacts to special-status bird species. Rather, the RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood's comments regarding bird-window collision mortality, which he "predicted would be 234 bird deaths per year(95% CI: 139-329)." (Ex. B, p. 7.)As Dr. Smallwood points out, "this level of mortality would qualify as a Page 818 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND April 13, 2022 Page 3 of 31 significant, unmitigated impact." (Ex. B,p. 7.) Thus, an EIR needs to be prepared to appropriately analyze the impacts of bird-window collisions, and mitigate accordingly. E. The RIS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project. Dr. Smallwood identifies the serious impacts that increased traffic has on wildlife. (Ex. B,p. 7.)Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to vehicle collisions is especially important because "traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife" across North America. (Ex. D,p. 17 [citing Forman et al. 2003].) In the United States alone, estimates for "avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year." (Ex. D, p. 17 [citing Loss et al. 2014].) The RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood's comments regarding mortality caused by project-generated traffic. Dr. Smallwood predicted that"the Project's traffic would cause 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year." (Ex. B, p. 7.) The original IS/MND also failed to recognize at all this potential significant impact of the Project. However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, "this level of mortality would qualify as a significant, unmitigated impact." (Ex. B, p. 7.) Because a fair argument exists that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife in the vicinity as a result of vehicle-wildlife collisions, an EIR must be prepared to assess this impact and identify appropriate mitigation. F. The RIS/MND fails to adequately address the Project's potential cumulative impacts on wildlife. The RIS/MND ignores Dr. Smallwood's comments regarding cumulative impacts on wildlife from the Project. (Ex. B, p. 7.) Dr. Smallwood's comments argue that the IS/MND and RIS/MND both fail to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts to wildlife from the Project by applying"a false CEQA standard for determining whether the project would contribute cumulatively to impacts to wildlife." (Ex. B,p. 7.) However, the RIS/MND's implied standard is not the standard of cumulative effects required under CEQA. The IS/MND also misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR must be prepared to include an adequate, serious analysis of the Project's cumulative impacts on wildlife. G. The pre-construction and burrowing owl surveys identified in the RIS/MND are not sufficient to address potential impacts to birds and bats that may be present at the site. Dr. Smallwood has reviewed the proposed wildlife impact mitigations identified in the RIS/MND related to pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats (i.e. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and BIO-3), and burrowing owl surveys (i.e. Mitigation Measure BIO-2). (Ex. B, p. 7.)Although Dr. Smallwood agrees with the need for burrowing owls surveys and pre- construction surveys for birds and bats at the Project site; he notes that burrowing owl surveys and pre-construction surveys will come too late either to disclose the Project's anticipated impacts or to fully mitigate impacts to birds, including burrowing owls, and bats. (Ex. B,p. 7.) As Dr. Smallwood explains: Page 819 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND April 13, 2022 Page 3 of 31 The RIS/MND splits the original mitigation measure BIO-1 into two measures, BIO-1 and BIO-3, but doing so did not address any of the issues I raised in my comment letter of 26 September 2021. Whereas I concur these preconstruction surveys should be performed, I again point out that only small fractions of the surveys' targets would be found and salvaged before the site's habitat is destroyed. The habitat of bats and birds would be permanently destroyed, thereby decreasing the numerical capacities of birds and bats in the area. Habitat elsewhere is already occupied, and would be incapable of absorbing birds and bats displaced from this project. (Ex. B,p. 7.) In discussing Mitigation Measure BIO-2 regarding burrowing owl surveys, Dr. Smallwood states that he: ...concur[s] with the implementation of the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines, but this needs to happen prior to the circulation of an EIR. The surveys need to inform the public and the decision-makers of the project's potential impacts to burrowing owls and whether and to what degree those impacts can be mitigated. (Ex. B, p. 7.) By failing to determine the actual baseline of bird's and bat's reliance on the site for roosting, nesting, and foraging and instead waiting within sixty days prior to the start of construction to determine what roosts, nests, birds, and bats may suffer impacts from the Project, the RIS/MND fails to evaluate and mitigate the Project's potential significant impacts to nesting birds and bats. Furthermore,burrowing owl surveys need to be conducted prior to construction and included and circulated in EIR. Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be implemented for the Project before pre-construction surveys are performed. (Ex. B,pp. 5-6.) In addition to detection surveys and pre-construction surveys being performed, an EIR should be prepared detailing how the results of pre-construction surveys will be reported, while burrowing owl surveys should be performed prior to and circulated in that EIR. (Ex. B, p. 7.) III. The RIS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project's Air Quality Impacts. The RIS/MND for the Project relies on emissions calculated from CalEEMod.2016.3.2. (RIS/MND, pp. 4-9; Ex. C,pp. 1-2.) This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a project's construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information Page 820 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND April 13, 2022 Page 3 of 31 provided in the RIS/MND, resulting in an underestimation of the Project's emissions. (Ex. C, p. 2.) SWAPE's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit C. The particular errors identified by SWAPE in the RIS/MND include the following: 1. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Residential Land Use Size. (Ex. C, pp. 2-3.) 2. Underestimated Parking Land Use Size. (Ex. C, pp. 3-4.) 3. Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors. (Ex. C,pp. 4-5.) 4. Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values. (Ex. C, pp. 5-6.) 5. Underestimated Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages. (Ex. C,pp. 6-8.) 6. Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates. (Ex. C,pp. 8-9.) 7. Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values. (Ex. C,pp. 9- 10.) 8. Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Final Mitigation. (Ex. C,pp. 10-12.) 9. Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures. (Ex. C, pp. 12-14.) Because the RIS/MND uses incorrect estimates for emissions, its air quality analysis and GHG emissions analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project's emissions. These errors should be corrected in a subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project. IV. The RIS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter("DPM"), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gasses and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard,particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board("CARB"), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease. The RIS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a proper quantified operational health risk assessment ("HRA"). (Ex. C,pp. 14-17.) Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the RIS/MND's justification is that"operation of the proposed Project would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations"because the Project"does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other Page 821 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND April 13, 2022 Page 3 of 31 equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations." (RIS/MND, p. 4-15.) However, SWAPE's review of the RIS/MND and its evaluation of potential health risk impacts for the Project found that the RIS/MND incorrectly concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact on nearby receptors, and completely failed to conduct a quantified operational HRA. (Ex. C, pp. 14-17.) SWAPE concluded that the RIS/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health impacts, as well as the less-than- significant health impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. (Ex. C, pp. 15-17.) First, the RIS/MND's construction-related HRA fails to account for the third trimester of pregnancy or infant receptors, as required by OEHHA guidance. (Ex. C, p. 15 [citing "Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf,] p. 2-5.) By not accounting for the first two age groups, the RIS/MND's construction-related HRA is not "protective of children." (Id.) In addition, SWAPE states that"because parameters for child and adult receptors are less than the parameters for the third trimester of pregnancy and infant receptors, such as Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASFs"), the RIS/MND's calculated carcinogenic risks are underestimated. (Ex. C,p. 15.) Second, the RIS/MND's construction-related HRA utilizes an incorrect Fraction of Time At Home ("FAH")value of 0.72 for the child receptor. (Ex. C,pp. 15-16 [citing RIS/MND,p. 4- 15, Table 4.3-4].) In accordance with SCAQMD guidance, the HRA should have used a FAH of 1 for the child receptor. (Ex. C,p. 16.) Thus, in utilizing an incorrect FAH value, the RIS/MND's construction HRA underestimates the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction. (Ex. C,p. 16.) Third, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. (Ex. C, p. 16.) SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. (Ex. C,p. 16 [citing RIS/MND, p. 4-10].) Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect toxic air contaminants ("TACs") emissions to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. (Ex. C, p. 16; see also, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Ca1.5th 502, 510.) Fourth, the RIS/MND's conclusion is also inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment's ("OEHHA")most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015. (See, "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.) OEHHA recommends Page 822 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND April 13, 2022 Page 3 of 31 that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. (Ex. C,p. 16.) The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. (Ex. C, p. 16.) Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. (Ex. C, p. 16.)An EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts. (Ex. C, p. 16.) Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without evaluating the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together, SWAPE found that the RIS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD's specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. C,p. 17.) Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an updated assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors from Project construction and operation should be conducted. V. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact. Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. (Ex. C., pp. 17-20.) SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 100 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. (Ex. C., pp. 17-20.) SWAPE found that the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of a Project operation of 30 years is approximately 89.59 in one million. (Ex. C., pp. 19-20.) The risks to lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. C.,pp. 17-19.) SWAPE's analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. A health risk assessment must be prepared disclosing the health risk impacts from toxic air contaminants. VI. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions of 2,935.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year("MT CO2e/year"), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. (RIS/MND, p. 4-37, Table 4.8-1.) Furthermore, the RIS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan ("CAP") in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less- Page 823 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND April 13, 2022 Page 3 of 31 than-significant GHG impact. (RIS/MND, pp. 4-37-4-39. However, SWAPE concludes that the RIS/MND's GHG analysis, as well as its subsequent less-than-significant conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. (Ex. C,pp. 20-23.) First, as SWAPE points out, the RIS/MND's GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model, as discussed above. (Ex. C, p. 21.) As a result, GHG emissions are underestimated and the RIS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Second, the RIS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. SWAPE notes that when compared to the correct quantitative threshold, the Project's GHG impacts are demonstrably significant. (Ex. C,p. 21.) Third and Fourth, SWAPE's updated analysis indicates a potential significant impact in GHG emissions. (Ex. C,pp. 21-23.)As such, SWAPE recommends that an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly,per CEQA Guidelines, to reduce the Project's GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. (Ex. C,pp. 21-23.) SWAPE's analysis demonstrated a potentially significant health risk impact from the project that necessitates mitigation, and it proposes that the project design features that are incorrectly applied as mitigation measures by the model be implemented formally as mitigation measures in order to adequately reduce construction and operational emissions. To reduce the Project's emissions, SWAPE also recommends consideration of SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR's Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-AQ-1") and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-GHG-1"). (Ex. C.,pp. 23-29.) In addition to implementing these measures, an EIR should be included with updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analysis. VII. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact. Review of the proposed Project and relevant appendices regarding the Project's noise impacts from construction activities provides substantial evidence that the RIS/MND improperly analyzed construction noise levels and failed to adequately mitigate significant construction noise impacts. (See, Ex. D, pp. 30-31.) Page 824 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Supplemental Comments on Recirculated IS/MND April 13, 2022 Page 3 of 31 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the RIS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should be prepared, and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Victoria Ann Yundt LOZEAU DRURY LLP Page 825 EXHIBIT A ._.EE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING lEE 1448 Pine Street,Suite 103 San Francisco,California 94109 Telephone:(415)567-7700 E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com Date: September 24, 2021 To: Victoria A. Yundt Lozeau l Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4499) Pages: 19 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality(IAQ)directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants,and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well- recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home(EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously.Additionally,an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, Page 827 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a),No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 lag/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD,2015). Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 2 of 19 Page 828 particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry,baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood,particleboard,medium density fiberboard,and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study(CNHS)was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARE Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations,with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3(18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus,while new homes built after the 2009 CARE formaldehyde ATCM have a 33%lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk,the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARE compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold(OEHHA, 2017a). With respect to the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces. 3 of 19 Page 829 The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure(e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction. Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million(e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy,more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million). The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures(e.g.,40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) 4 of 19 Page 830 Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day. Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day. This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("EIR"), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor 5 of 19 Page 831 concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased,and installed,if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded. 1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated(e.g. 100%outdoor air)is considered a separate zone.For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings(e.g.,m2 of material/m2 floor area,units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g.,plywood, medium density fiberboard,particleboard). 6 of 19 Page 832 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission,2014;USGBC, 2014),most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs,typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification.For instance,the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b)for the 35 specific VOCs,including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. 7 of 19 Page 833 If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed(i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List(CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. Etotal Cin = (Equation 1) Qoa where: Cm= indoor formaldehyde concentration(µg/m3) Etotai=total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. Qoa= design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 8 of 19 Page 834 3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017). 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.)Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non- Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone,provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include: 1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone. NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings,is the preferred mitigation option,as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. 9 of 19 Page 835 Further, we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre- Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32%of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour(ach),with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code(2001)requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus,the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. The Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project,Rancho Cucamonga,CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.), and thus the Project site is likely a sound impacted site. 10 of 19 Page 836 According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021)the existing ambient noise levels in Table 4.13-1,range from 52.5 to 70.8 dBA Leg. There were no modeled future noise levels in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021). An acoustic study of the existing and projected future noise levels needs to be conducted to understand the ambient noise levels, Ldn, and prepare the necessary project mitigation. We note that Project's close proximity to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.) make this Project site a significantly sound impacted site. As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021) the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin,which is a State and Federal non- attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor 11 of 19 Page 837 concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde(NAF)resins(CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder"speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used,but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and 12 of 19 Page 838 Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel,that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. 13 of 19 Page 839 References AECOM. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24,Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-03 7/CEC-400-2015-03 7- CMF.pdf 14 of 19 Page 840 CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 — Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson,A. T.,D.Beal,J.E.R. Mcllvaine.2002. Sources of formaldehyde,other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242. OEHHA(Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015.Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA(Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels.No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA-Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.2017b.All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission,PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf Offermann,F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX. 15 of 19 Page 841 Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899. South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD).2015.California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality- analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4 16 of 19 Page 842 APPENDIX A INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS AND THE CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products,the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California". In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not"assure healthful indoor air quality", but rather"reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products". Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products?Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not"assure healthful indoor air quality"when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms(4)as defined in Appendix B(New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,Version 1.1,2017,California Department of Public Health, 17 of 19 Page 843 Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Page s/V O C.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard(MDF)— 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board—30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or Hardwood Plywood 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or Thin MDF—46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area). For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants,assuming 8 hours/day occupancy,and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard(MDF)—3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board—7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood— 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF— 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms) Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 18 of 19 Page 844 cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates,and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach,is to use only composite wood products(e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF)resins. 19 of 19 Page 845 EXHIBIT B Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Vincent Acuna, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department io5oo Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91 25 February 2022 RE: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Dear Mr.Acuna, I write to comment on the Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (RIS/MND) prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2o21), specifically on its analysis of potential impacts to biological resources. I commented on the original IS/MND in my letter of 26 September 2021. Herein I comment on new or revised issues that are raised in the RIS/MND, as well as on issues I raised regarding the IS/MND,but which remain unaddressed in the RIS/MND. ESISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The RIS/MND does a slightly better job of characterizing baseline conditions of the site, but only slightly. The improvement is in the provision of an updated memo from AECOM regarding its reconnaissance-level survey performed on 24 September 2020. The original IS/MND had omitted lists of species detected during this survey. What was not improved, and what warranted an improvement, was a follow-up survey(or multiple surveys) at an appropriate time of day for wildlife. The survey was performed by AECOM in the middle of a hot afternoon — a time during the day when, as biologists are generally well-aware, wildlife activity is at its nadir and species are least likely to be detected. The updated memo reveals that AECOM detected only 8 species of vertebrate wildlife. Of the 8 species detected by AECOM, 3 were not detected by Noriko Smallwood, who surveyed the site on my behalf during the morning of 4 September 2021 (Table 1). That AECOM found only 8 species at the same site where Noriko Smallwood found 24 goes to my point that AECOM's survey was performed at an inappropriate time of day for its stated purpose"to determine the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur within the biological survey area."Noriko found 3 times the number of species that AECOM found. The survey that is supposed to inform of the existing environmental setting,which itself is supposed to serve as the baseline against which potential impacts are analyzed, fails to do so. Neither the original IS/MND nor the RIS/MND should be treating the AECOM survey results as representative of existing environmental conditions. 1 Page 847 Table 1. Species of wildlife detected by AECOM during the afternoon of 24 September 2020 and by Noriko Smallwood (NS)who surveyed from o6:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site. Species Scientific name Status AECOM NS Great blue heron Ardea herodius + Gull Laridae + Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP + American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP + Mourning dove Zenaida macroura + Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native + Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native + Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna + White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis + Say's phoebe Sayornis saya + Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans + + Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans + European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native + California scrub jay Aphelocoma californica + Common raven Corvus corax + American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos + Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor + Barn swallow Hirundo rustica + Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos + + Bushtit Psaltiparus minimus + House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native + House finch Carpodacus mexicanus + + Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria + + California ground squirrel Otospermophilus + + beecheyi Botta's pocket gopher Thomomys bottae + Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana + Western fence lizard Sceloperus occidentalis + The results of the AECOM survey combined with those of Noriko's survey brings the tally of vertebrate wildlife species detections to 27. The RIS/MND ignores Noriko's survey results and what they mean to the characterization of the existing environmental setting and the likelihoods of special-status species occurrences. The RIS/MND misleadingly reports, "no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey." This reporting is misleading not only because it ignores the special-status species that Noriko detected, but also attempts to pass off the AECOM survey effort as sufficient for detecting special- status species. It was not. No reconnaissance-level survey effort is capable of detecting all the species that use a site, including those that use it seasons and times of day other than when the reconnaissance-level survey was performed. Furthermore, no biologist is perfect at detecting the species of wildlife that are available to be detected at the time of 2 Page 848 the survey. For these reasons, to characterize the wildlife community at a site, multiple methods and multiple surveys are needed (see below). As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area,where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares,best-fit nonlinear models of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey(number of surveys) at the station: R = 1,/a+bx(Hours)c ,where R represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged o.88 to 1.00,with a mean of 0.97(95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data. I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 1). On average I detected 9 species over the first 1.8 hours of surveys in the Altamont Pass (1.8 hours to match the number of hours Noriko surveyed at the project site),which composed 15.8 % of the total predicted species I would detect with a much larger survey effort. Given the example illustrated in Figure 1, the 24 species Noriko detected after her 1.8 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 15.8% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 24/0.158 = 152 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. The site is predicted to host 152 species of vertebrate wildlife over the course of the average year,which is nearly 20 times the number implied in the RIS/MND. Again, however, my prediction of 152 species of vertebrate wildlife is derived from visual-scan surveys during the daytime, and would not detect nocturnal mammals. The true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. A reconnaissance-level survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site's wildlife community,but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. This later point is especially true of a survey performed during the middle of a hot afternoon. 3 Page 849 Figure 1. Mean (95%CI) 50 predicted wildlife species richness, R, as a nonlinear function of hour-long . survey increments across 40 —_ ;,`,/,,tlt�t�n,�uult"tt'Itt,ltuttna tItLU.IIlIl11P11 46 visual-scan survey <� stations across the Altamont Pass Wind — 4\, Resource Area,Alameda U 30 —4 — and Contra Costa •' Counties, 2015-2019. s 20 - 9- 0- 0 10 15 Q 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cumulative number of surveys (hours) There is no question that a larger survey effort would result in a longer list of species documented to use the project site, thereby changing our understanding of the current environmental setting. But still unknown are which species have yet to be detected, how many of the yet-to-be-detected species are special-status species, and how many are listed species. The likelihood of detecting special-status species is typically lower than that of more common species. This difference can be explained by the fact that special- status species tend to be rarer and thus less detectable than common species. Special- status species also tend to be more cryptic, fossorial, or active during nocturnal periods when reconnaissance surveys are not performed. Another useful relationship from careful recording of species detections and subsequent comparative analysis is the probability of detection of listed species as a function of an increasing number of vertebrate wildlife species detected (Figure 2). (Note that listed species number fewer than special-status species,which are inclusive of listed species.Also note that I include California Fully Protected species and federal Candidate species as listed species.) 4 Page 850 Figure 2. Probability 1.0 of detecting >_i a) e-2.621955+0.068131N - Candidate, Threatened 7 Q P - 1 + e-2.621955+0.068131N - - 0 or Endangered Species m u -- of wildlife listed under m m 0.8 = 95% CI -- 00 California or federal o m _ Endangered Species a_ 00 Acts, based on survey 152 site visits = o — _ outcomes logit- w - — �•• - regressed on the c' o .•• — -- number of wildlife m _ .•• --- species I detected during 0.4 - _ •0 =_ - 152 site visits in }' _ — •• __ California. The dashed 0 m •• —_— vertical line represents = 1— I — •�.•�_= the number of species 0.2 =1 ��A.*`_ — - detected by AECOM and o ' •`' -- the solid vertical line a 2 •`'' __ c - - represents the number U 0.0 Noriko Smallwood . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 detected. Number of species detected As was demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2, the number of species detected is largely a function of survey effort. Greater survey effort also increases the likelihood that listed species will be detected (which is the first tenet of detection surveys for special-status species). Based on the outcomes of 152 previous surveys that I performed at sites of proposed projects, Noriko Smallwood's survey effort at the project site carried a 28% chance of detecting a listed species,whereas the survey effort of AECOM resulted in the detections of many fewer species and therefore carried an 11% chance of detecting a listed species. To stand a reasonable chance of detecting a listed species,AECOM would have needed to perform another 9 of the surveys it completed on 21 September 2020. I have no doubt that listed species use the site, but serious efforts to detect them must be made before determining listed species are absent. No reconnaissance-level survey is capable of detecting enough of the wildlife species that occur at a site to realistically characterize the site's wildlife community. This context bears on my earlier and current comments regarding potential project impacts to biological resources. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT The RIS/MND revises the City's treatment of burrowing owls by considering the species potentially present. However, while acknowledging potential presence of burrowing owls, the RIS/MND also downplays their occurrence likelihood by asserting that the site does not provide high quality habitat. Unless the City measured productivity of burrowing owls on site and compared productivity to burrowing owls at other sites,the City has no means of assessing habitat quality. Habitat quality carries a specific meaning in the field of wildlife biology, and that meaning goes to productivity, which is 5 Page 851 measured by nest success, fecundity, number of chicks emerged from the burrow, number of chicks surviving to fledging, and even the number of chicks surviving to reproduce. None of these measurements were made at the site, so no conclusion of habitat quality can be taken as credible. The questions that are in most need of answers before the CEQA review is certified is whether the site provides habitat to burrowing owls, how many burrowing owls use the site, and for what purpose(s) do burrowing owls use the site. To answer these questions, the detection surveys recommended by CDFW (2012) need to be implemented in full, and they need to be completed prior to the public circulation of an EIR because one of the main objectives of the surveys is to inform the public and decision-makers of potential impacts and whether and to what degree they can be mitigated. The RIS/MND continues to imply that lack of CNDDB records support the RIS/MND determinations of species' absences from the site. This is a misapplication of CNDDB. CNDDB can be helpful for confirming occurrences of special-status species where they have been reported,but it cannot be relied upon for determining absences of species. CNDDB relies on volunteer reporting, and is limited in its spatial coverage by the access of biologists to private properties. The findings reported to CNDDB are not from any sort of randomized or systematic sampling across California, nor does CNDDB collect reports of negative findings. Another limitation of CNDDB is its focus on special-status species. Most members of any of California's wildlife communities are not reported to CNDDB, because CNDDB is not interested in them and Scientific Collecting Permits do not require reporting of them. This means that any species recently designated with special status will not be as well represented in CNDDB as are other species that were assigned special status decades ago. The limitations of CNDDB are well-known, and summarized by CDFW in a warning presented on its CNDDB web site (https:// wildlife.ca .gov/Data/CNDDB/ Maps-and-Data): "We work very hard to keep the CNDDB and the Spotted Owl Database as current and up-to-date as possible given our capabilities and resources. However, we cannot and do not portray the CNDDB as an exhaustive and comprehensive inventory of all rare species and natural communities statewide.Field verification for the presence or absence of sensitive species will always be an important obligation of our customers..." A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately assess occurrence likelihoods of special-status species as part of the characterization of the current environmental setting. Habitat Loss The RIS/MND ignores my comments regarding habitat loss to breeding birds. Based on simple assumptions and simple calculations, I predicted the project would deny Californians of ii6 birds per year. This loss would qualify as a significant, unmitigated impact. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impacts of habitat loss to birds and other wildlife. Wildlife Movement The RIS/MND ignores my comments regarding wildlife movement and how, in its analysis, the RIS/MND applies a false CEQA standard centered on whether the site is 6 Page 852 part of a wildlife movement corridor. The CEQA standard does not rely on whether the site is part of a corridor. BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY The RIS/MND ignores my comments regarding bird-window collision mortality, which I predicted would be 234 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 139-329). This level of mortality would qualify as a significant, unmitigated impact. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impacts of bird-window collisions. TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE The RIS/MND ignores my comments regarding mortality caused by project-generated traffic. I predicted the project's traffic would cause 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year. This level of mortality would qualify as a significant, unmitigated impact. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impacts of vehicle-wildlife collisions. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The RIS/MND ignores my comments regarding cumulative impacts, and how the RIS/MND applies a false CEQA standard for determining whether the project would contribute cumulatively to impacts to wildlife. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential cumulative impacts MITIGATION BIO-i and BIO-3: Preconstruction survey for roosting bats and nesting birds The RIS/MND splits the original mitigation measure BIO-1 into two measures, BIO-1 and BIO-3,but doing so did not address any of the issues I raised in my comment letter of 26 September 2021. Whereas I concur these preconstruction surveys should be performed, I again point out that only small fractions of the surveys' targets would be found and salvaged before the site's habitat is destroyed. The habitat of bats and birds would be permanently destroyed, thereby decreasing the numerical capacities of birds and bats in the area. Habitat elsewhere is already occupied, and would be incapable of absorbing birds and bats displaced from this project. BIO-2: Burrowing owl surveys I concur with the implementation of the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines,but this needs to happen prior to the circulation of an EIR. The surveys need to inform the public and the decision-makers of the project's potential impacts to burrowing owls and whether and to what degree those impacts can be mitigated. 7 Page 853 Thank you for your attention, Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. REFERENCES CITED CDFW(California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. 8 Page 854 EXHIBIT C SWAP E Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street,Suite 201 Santa Monica,CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G,C.Hg. (949)887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310)795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com March 16, 2022 Victoria Yundt Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94618 Subject: Comments on the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Dear Ms.Yundt, We have reviewed the February 2022 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("RIS/MND")for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project ("Project") located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City").The Project proposes to construct a 260-unit apartment building, 3,339-square feet("SF") of commercial space, and 5,500-SF of indoor amenity space, as well as a total of 528 parking spaces, on the 5.2-acre site. Our review concludes that the RIS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts.As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report("EIR") should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment. Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The RIS/MND's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p.4-9).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data,total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known,the user can change the default values and input 1"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide. Page 856 project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated.These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected. When reviewing the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the Updated Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment Modeling Outputs as Appendix K to the RIS/MND, respectively, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the RIS/MND.As a result,the Project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated.Thus, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Residential Land Use Size According to the RIS/MND,the Project proposes to construct "259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet" (p. 1-14). Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the correct number of residential units (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 4, 58, 112). Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area I Population General Office Building 5.54 1000s41 i 0.13 5,537.00 I 9 Enclosed Parking with Elevator .265.00 Space I- 606 89,810.OD I 0 i F Parking Lot 20000 Space 1.80 64690.0D 9 8 i F I 1 City Park 0.33 Acre i 0.33 14,375.0D I 9 I-Recreational Swimming Pool 3.58 1000sgfl 0 00 3,572.00 I 0 I r Apartments Mid Rise 25900 Dwelling Unit f 3.00 225,079 00 I 785 I Condo/Townhouse 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 1,570.00 i 3 • S Step Mall 244 1000sgfl 000 2436.00 0 However, further review demonstrates that the square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area was reduced from the default value of 259,000-to 225,079-SF (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 10, 64, 118). Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value thiLandUse LandUse5quareFeet 259,000.00 225,079.00 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for this change is: "Apartments: 226,649 SF (Includes Live/Work Unit)" (Appendix K, pp. 4, 58, 112). 2"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1. 2 Page 857 However, this justification is insufficient for two reasons. First,the RIS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that a floor surface area of 225,079-SF is accurate. Second, as previously stated,the RIS/MND indicates that the 259 apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF (p. 1-13).Thus,the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185-SF3 to 354,053-SF.4 As such, in order to conduct the most conservative analysis,the model should have included 354,053-SF of floor surface area. This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model's calculations.The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts).5 Thus, by including an unsubstantiated reduction to the residential floor surface area, the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Underestimated Parking Land Use Size According to the RIS/MND: "The proposed Project would provide 528 total parking spaces: 200 surface parking spaces and 328 garage parking spaces, including guest parking spaces" (p. 1-15). However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes only 265 spaces of"Enclosed Parking with Elevator" (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 4, 58, 112). Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area I Population General Office Building 5.54 1000s4t i 0.13 5537.00 1 f Enclosed Parking with Elevator 265.00 Space 0.00 90,S10 00 1 0 1 1 I I Parking Lot 20000 Space 1.80 64,690 00. 0 i i F I 4 City Park 0.33 Acre i 0.33 14,375.9D 1 F Recreational Swimming Pool 3.58 1000sgfl t 0.00 3572.00 1 i F I Apartments Mid Rise 259 00 Dwelling Unit 300 225,079 00 1 785 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 1,570.00 1 3 Strip Mall 244 1000s0 0.00 2436.00 0 As demonstrated above, while the model correctly includes 200 surface parking spaces, the number of garage parking spaces is underestimated by 63 spaces.'Additionally,further review demonstrates that floor surface areas for both the "Enclosed Parking with Elevator" and "Parking Lot" land uses were 'Calculated:715-SF * 259 units= 185,185-SF total. 4 Calculated: 1,367-SF* 259 units=354,053-SF total. 5"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p.29. 6 Calculated: 328 proposed garage parking spaces—265 modeled garage parking spaces=63 underestimation. 3 Page 858 reduced from the default value of 106,000-to 89,810-SF and 80,000-SF to 64,690-SF, respectively(see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 10, 64, 118). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value iblLandUse - LandUseSquareFeet 106,000.00 - 89,81000 iblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 80,006.00 64,690.00 As you can see in the excerpt above, the garage and surface parking land use sizes were manually reduced by 16,190-SF and 15,310-SF, respectively.''8 As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.'According to the "User Entered Comments& Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Sub. Parking: 89,810 SF Sfc. Parking: 64,690 SF" (Appendix K, pp. 5, 59, 113). However, the RIS/MND fails to mention the square footage of the proposed garage or surface parking land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify the revised parking land use sizes. These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as the square footage of parking land uses is used for certain calculations such as determining the area to be painted and stripped (i.e.,VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume to be ventilated (i.e., energy impacts).10 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the square feet of the proposed parking land uses,the model underestimates the Project's emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 6, 60, 114). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value iblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 106.00 50.00 + - tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 109.00 50.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 100 50 As you can see in the excerpt above, the nonresidential exterior architectural and area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default value of 100-to 50-grams per liter ("g/L").As previously 'Calculated: (106,000-SF default"Enclosed Parking with Elevator" land use size)—(89,810-SF revised land use size) = 16,190-SF reduction. 8 Calculated: (80,000-SF default"Parking Lot" land use size)—(64,690-SF revised land use size)=15,310-SF reduction. "CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 10"CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p.29. 4 Page 859 mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 11According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table, the justification provided for these changes is: "SCAQMD Rule 1113 Compliance for Building Envelope and residential coatings-50 g/L" (Appendix K, pp. 5, 59, 113). However,these changes remain unsupported for two reasons. First, the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the Building Envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required per SCAQMD Rule 1113,whatsoever. Second, the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only Building Envelope coatings during construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever.As such,we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate. These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project's reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound ("ROG"/"VOC") emissions.12 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors,the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default gas fireplace values (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 8, 62, 116). Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value 4 tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 25.00 D.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 25.00 365.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.00 D.00 tblFireplaces ▪ FireplaceHaurDay 3.00 6 00 f tblFireplaces ▪ FireplaceWaodMass 1,01920 1 DOD + tblFireplaces FireplaceWaodMass 1,019.20 I 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 220.15 D.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 0.85 1.00 As you can see in the excerpt above, the model assumes that the Project would include only one gas fireplace.As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults 11"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1. 12"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p.35,41. 5 Page 860 be justified. 13According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for these changes is: "No Fireplaces in units per Project Design 1 Outdoor Fireplace Included" (Appendix K, pp. 5, 59, 113). However, this justification is insufficient, as the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to mention or substantiate the exclusion of gas fireplaces from the Project design whatsoever.This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User's Guide: "CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project- specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA."14 Here, as the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to provide substantial evidence to support the assumption that no gas fireplace would be included in the Project design, we cannot verify the changes. This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the number of gas fireplaces to calculate the Project's area-source operational emissions.15 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the gas fireplace values,the model may underestimate the Project's area-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Underestimated Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use" model includes several changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 9, 63, 117). 13"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1. 14"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13-14. 1s"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p.40-41. 6 Page 861 l I Table Name l Column Name Default Value New Value tblFleetMix HHD 0.07 0.00 tblFleetMix ■ HHD ■ 0.07 0.00 tblFleetMix • LDA 0.56 0.60 tblFleetMix • LDA • 0.56 0.60 4 tblFleetMix • LDT1 0.04 0.06 tblFleetMix ■ LDT1 ■ 0.04 0.06 4 tblFleetMix • LDT2 0.18 0.19 tblFleetMix ■ LDT2 ■ 0.18 0.19 4 tblFleetMix • LHD1 0.01 0.02 tblFleetMix ■ LHD1 ■ 0.01 0.02 • tblFleetMix • LHD2 4.7940e-003 5.0000e-003 • tblFleetMix • LHD2 4.7940e-003 5.0000e-003 4• tblFleetMix • MC? 5.7250e-003 0.01 • tblFleetMix ■ MC? ■ 5.7250e-003 0.01 4• tblFleetMix • MEN 9.11 0.12 tblFleetMix ■ MDV ■ 0.11 0.12 4 tblFleetMix • MH 8.3000e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix ■ MH ■ 8.3000e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix • MH❑ 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix • MHD 0.02 0.00 tblFleetMix • OBUS 1.3650e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix ■ OBUS ■ 1.3650e-003 0.00 4 tblFleetMix • SBUS 7.9900e-004 0.00 tblFleetMix ■ SBUS ■ 7.9900e-004 0.00 4 tblFleetMix • UBUS 1.491 0e-003 0.00 tblFleetMix ■ UBUS ■ 1.4910e-003 0.00 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.16 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table, the justification provided for these changes is: "Residential Trips" (Appendix K, pp. 6, 60, 114). However,these changes remain unsupported, as the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the operational vehicle fleet mix or justify the revised percentages whatsoever.According to the CalEEMod User's Guide: 16"CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1. 7 Page 862 "CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project- specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA" (emphasis added).17 Here, as the RIS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, we cannot verify the changes. These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as operational vehicle fleet mix percentages are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project's operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles.18 Thus, by including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix,the model may underestimate the Project's mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates According to the RIS/MND: "It is anticipated that the proposed Project would accommodate approximately 788 future residents, and operational activities would generate approximately 1.6 tons per day of solid waste for residential uses and 154 pounds per day for commercial uses during Project operation" (p. 4-79). As such,the model should have included 584-and 28.1-tons per year("tpy") of solid waste for the Project's proposed residential and commercial land uses.19'20 However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes only 580.32-and 25.45-tpy of solid waste for the proposed residential and commercial land uses, respectively (see excerpts below) (Appendix K, pp. 172-173). 17"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13-14. 18"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p.37. 19 Calculated: 1.6 tons *365 days=584 tpy for the residential land use. 20 Calculated: (154 lbs/2,000) * 365 days=28.1 tpy for the commercial land uses. 8 Page 863 Waste Total CO2 CH4 • -. CO2e !Disposed Land Use tons M;;yr I Apartments Mid • 580.32 117.7997 1 6.9618 1 0.000D 1 291.8438 1 1 1 1 Rise 1 1 1 City Park 0 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 +, 1 1 1 1 it 1 1 r it- T T -r �CondotTawnhous 0 +I 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 +1 1 1 1 Enclosed Parking • 0 +. O'.0000 , 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 ': II:_ with Elevator , a, , , , 1 1 1 General Office 5.15 1.0454 1 D.0618 1 0.0000 1 _.± .. Building ; ; ; 1 1 1 Parking Lot 0 +: Z.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 +1 1 1 1 +, , Recreational D ii ii D.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 Trimming Pool , i, , ■ 1 1 1 Strip Mall 1 20.45 4.1512 1 0.2453 1 0.0000 1 10.2843 1 1 Total 122,9963 7,2689 0.0000 304.7181 As you can see in the excerpt above, the residential and commercial solid waste generation rates were underestimated by 3.68-and 2.5-tpy. Thus,the model is underestimated and inconsistent with the information provided in the RIS/MND. These underestimations present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the solid waste generation rates to calculate the Project's operational GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste into landfills.'Thus, by including underestimated solid waste generation rates,the model underestimates the Project's operational GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 10, 64, 118). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value i I tbloffRaadEquipment HorsePower 78 01 - 15 00 4 f tbI0ffRoadEquipment HorsePower 78.00 15.00 21"CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p.46. 9 Page 864 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.22 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Project Inventory provided by Applicant" (Appendix K, pp. 5, 59, 113). However, the RIS/MND and associated documents fail to mention or justify the revised construction off- road equipment horsepower values whatsoever.This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User's Guide: "CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project- specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA" (emphasis added).23 Here, as the RIS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised horsepower values, we cannot verify the changes. These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses horsepower values to calculate emissions associated with off-road construction equipment.24 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values,the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Final Mitigation Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model assumes that most of the Project's off-road construction equipment fleet would meet Tier 4 Final emissions standards (see excerpt below) (Appendix K, pp. 7, 61, 115). 22"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1. 23"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13-14. 24"CalEEMod User's Guide."California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p.33. 10 Page 865 Table Name Column Name default Value New Value tbIConstEquipMitigation • Tier • No Change Tier4 Final 4 + — tblConstEquipMitigation • Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tbIConstEquipMitigation ■ Tier ■ No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation • Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation ■ Tier ■ No Change Tier 4 Final tblconstEquipMitigation • Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation • Tier No Change Tier 4 Final 4 tblConstEquipMitigation • Tier No Change Tier Final tblconstEquipMitigation ■ Tier ■ No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation • Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation ■ Tier ■ No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation • Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tbIConstEquipMitigation ■ Tier ■ No Change Tier Final ii -------------- - As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.25 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table,the justification provided for the inclusion of Tier 4 Final mitigation is: "Best management practices to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 include watering exposed areas thrice daily" (Appendix B, pp. 71). Furthermore, the RIS/MND implements the following Best Management Practice ("BMP"), which would be included as a standard condition of Project approval: "The proposed Project would require the employment of contractor(s) capable of providing an equipment fleet comprising all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with engines greater than 25 horsepower that meet or exceed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)Tier 4 off-road emissions standards. The use of Tier 4 engines is a standard practice for development projects and will be required by the City pursuant to the proposed Project's conditions of approval and in accordance with the General Plan Update EIR (adopted on December 15, 2021)" (p. 1-17). However, the inclusion of Tier 4 Final emissions standards remains unsupported. As demonstrated above, the RIS/MND fails to require the more efficient Tier 4 Final emission standards. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") has slowly adopted more stringent standards to lower the emissions from off-road construction equipment. Since 1994,Tier 1, Tier 2,Tier 3,Tier 4 Interim, and Tier 4 Final construction equipment have been phased in over time. Tier 4 Final represents the cleanest 25 "CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 2, 9. 11 Page 866 burning equipment and therefore has the lowest emissions compared to other tiers, including Tier 4 Interim equipment (see excerpt below):26 5995 139e ]93] 19919 199s soon xo] 2032 2303 zhoa zoos .o06 xo] soos 2ou9 zmo zou xtz xis MU x]sr Ixvsawr.e. 26606,60 7.1 f4.1/0.50 5.0/40/0.45 5.8/41,0.22 1111,43/am 50,11.:75 35:37/022 35(9](4,02• S.fi.3i'0.30 114/25! 430/ 3710.015' 37' _DOsI^•:l"5 4.9!37•022 39/3.7/422 0.415 014/15/ 0.14/0.30/ 30Q-.... !.0 0.3:E.5 0.i3 39:2.0;Q.LSr 4.8.2.8•13.15 2a/acre' 2s1ants 602'-I r.1�L 01626 26F 0.30120/2E/a.57 pA3 ........................... 16/691rriseurA➢ 6e r26/025 7501 0EI• 4.14j e120.I: 0.50/ 2B; 0£101210 he 430/4.50!2.6;007 Q1L Source:4enveo from Calrforna AN Resources Boom.non//a ewaro.ca.gov/msprngeorarese/aoeumentse0t-Faa0 oiesel.otaaxks. a]Warm ARS and USEPA standards ogler,me smndaras shown here represem the more smngem of the two. h]Standards given tor all sues of firer lengmes are hydrecaraons(caides of mNogen lNOaf/rauhon monoxide(03Voadiculate matter l PM]in grams per h l...smear per hour lg/hhp.hr]_ c/5lenaarde green for all saes of Tier 2 and Tier 3 engines,and Ter 4 engines below 75 horsepower are nonanernerre mon:scarbons ll.MHC]+140x(CO/PM In grahp-hr. di Standards Pjeen for Tier I englrrm aroma 75 horsepower are NMHO/k6VC0/PM in g/bhpnr. a]Engine families on Mao power carry may anemetely meet Tier 3 PM standards 10.30 g/ohpa r)fnorn 200B-2011 in exchange for introducing final PM standards In 2012 f)The.mplementahon schedule shown IS the threeyearanemete NOT approach.Other schedules are aral lame. g)Cedaln manufacTurefs'Nave agreed-0 oomph wire these sta2derdsoy 2005. 7Iero Ica �ikr� via .. ¢reenrr,trot As demonstrated in the figure above,Tier 4 Interim equipment has higher emission levels than Tier 4 Final equipment.Therefore, by modeling construction emissions assuming a full Tier 4 Final equipment fleet,the RIS/MND fails to account for higher emissions that may occur as a result of the use of Tier 4 Interim equipment. Since the RIS/MND fails to specify whether the Project would use Tier 4 Interim or Tier 4 Final equipment, it is incorrect to model emissions assuming that the more efficient Tier 4 Final equipment would be implemented. Until an EIR is prepared requiring Tier 4 Final engines during all phases of construction, and not Tier 4 Interim equipment, the model should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the following area-related operational mitigation measures (see excerpts below) (Appendix K, pp. 54, 108, 165): 26"San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects."August 2015,available at:https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/AirQuality/San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance 2015.pdf, p.6 12 Page 867 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use Low VOC Paint- Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint- Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint- Non-Residential Exterior Use only Natural Gas Hearths As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.27 However the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data"table, only provides justification for the inclusion of the area-related operational mitigation measures,which states: "SCAQMD Rule 1113 Compliance for Building Envelope" (Appendix K, pp. 6, 60, 114). However,the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures remains unsupported for three reasons. First,the RIS/MND fails to mention the use of low VOC paints whatsoever.As such,we cannot verify the Project actually intends on implementing the area-related operational mitigation measures. Second, the inclusion of the operational mitigation measures, based on the Project's purported compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsupported.As previously stated, according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures: "By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts."28 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures "are not part of the original project design" and are intended to go "above-and-beyond" existing regulatory requirements. As such,the inclusion of these measures, based on the Project's vague compliance SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsubstantiated. Third,the RIS/MND fails to formally include the above-mentioned design features as Project-level mitigation measures.This is incorrect, as AEP guidance states: "While not"mitigation", a good practice is to include those project design feature(s)that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental 27"CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021,available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1. 28"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP), February 2020,available at:https://cegaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p.5. 13 Page 868 impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact" (emphasis added).29 As you can see in the excerpt above, design features that are not formally included as mitigation measures in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether.Thus, as the area-related operational measures are not formally included as mitigation measures,we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.As such,the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures in the model is incorrect. As a result,the model may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The RIS/MND estimates that the carcinogenic risk posed to nearby, existing child and adult sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction would be 2.64 and 0.35 in one million, respectively, neither of which would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 4-15;Table 4.3-4). Table 4.3-4. Construction Diesel PM Inhalation-Pathway Health Risk Assessment Parameter Description/Units Child Receptor Adult Receptor Caw Maximum Annual Average Concentration[pglm3] 0.04718 0.04718 [BR/BW] Daily Breathing Rate per Body Weight[Llkg-day] 861 335 A Absorption Fraction 100% 100% EF Exposure Frequency[360 days/365 days] 0.96 0.96 CPF Cancer Potency Factor[mg/kg-day'] 1.1 1.1 ASF Age Sensitivity Factor 3 1 ED Exposure Duration[Years] 2 2 AT Averaging Time[Years] 70 70 FAH Fraction of Time at Home 0.72 0.73 CF Conversion Factor[mg/kg] 1.0 x 10-6 1.0 x 10-5 Carcinogenic Risk(Excess Cancers per Million) 2.64 0.35 SCAQMD Threshold 10 10 Threshold Exceeded? No No Source: TAHA 2021 Regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project operation,the RIS/MND states: "Operation of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area.The proposed Project does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations.The operational emissions analysis shown in Table 4.3-2 demonstrates that operation of the proposed Project would not produce emissions capable of resulting in 29"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP), February 2020,available at: https://cegaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p.6. 14 Page 869 substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations.Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations" (p. 4-15). As demonstrated above, the RIS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant operational health risk impact because the Project's equipment and facilities would not result in significant toxic air contaminant ("TAC") emissions. However,the RIS/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for five reasons. First,the RIS/MND's construction-related HRA fails to account for the third trimester of pregnancy or infant receptors.According to OEHHA guidance, as discussed in detail below, residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.30 As such, by not accounting for the first two age groups,the RIS/MND's construction-related HRA is not"protective of children."31 Furthermore, because parameters for child and adult receptors are less than the parameters for the third trimester of pregnancy and infant receptors, such as Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASFs"),the RIS/MND's calculated carcinogenic risks are underestimated. Second, the RIS/MND's construction-related HRA utilizes an incorrect Fraction of Time At Home ("FAH") value. Specifically,the HRA utilizes a FAH value of 0.72 for the child receptor(see excerpt below) (p. 4- 15;Table 4.3-4): Table 4.3-4. Construction Diesel PM Inhalation-Pathway Health Risk Assessment Parameter Description/Units Child Receptor Adult Receptor Car Maximum Annual Average Concentration[lag/M3] 0.04718 0.04718 [BR/BW] Daily Breathing Rate per Body Weight[L/kg-day] 861 335 A Absorption Fraction 100% 100% EF Exposure Frequency[360 days/365 days] 0.96 0.96 CPF Cancer Potency Factor[mg/kg-day-1] 1.1 1.1 ASF Age Sensitivity Factor 3 1 ED Exposure Duration[Years] 2 2 AT Averaging Time[Years] 70 7❑ FAH Fraction of Time at Home I 0.72 I 0.73 CF Conversion Factor[mg/kg] 1.0 x 10-6 1.0 x 10-6 Carcinogenic Risk(Excess Cancers per Million) 2.64 0.35 SCAQMD Threshold 10 10 Threshold Exceeded? No No Source:TAHA 2021 However,the FAH value used for the childhood age is incorrect, as SCAQMD guidance states: 30"Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p.2-5. 31"Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p.2-5. 15 Page 870 "For Tiers 1, 2, and 3 screening purposes,the FAH is assumed to be 1 for ages third trimester to 16. As a default, children are assumed to attend a daycare or school in close proximity to their home and no discount should be taken for time spent outside of the area affected by the facility's emissions. People older than age 16 are assumed to spend only 73 percent of their time at home."32 As such, per SCAQMD guidance,the HRA should have used an FAH of 1 for the child receptor.Thus, by utilizing an incorrect FAH value,the RIS/MND's construction HRA underestimates the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction. Third, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA,the Project is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.33 According to the IS/MND,the Project is anticipated to generate 1,503 average daily vehicle trips which will generate additional exhaust emissions and expose nearby sensitive receptors to diesel particulate matter ("DPM") emissions regardless (p.4-10). However,the RIS/MND fails to evaluate the potential TACs associated with Project operation or the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects.Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project's operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors,the Project is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in TAC emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health. Fourth,the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"),the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015, as referenced by the RIS/MND (p. 4-13).34 The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR").35 Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore,we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA.This recommendation reflects the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project operation be included in an EIR for the Project. 32"Risk Assessment Procedures."SCAQMD,August 2017,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf, p.7. 33"Sierra Club v.County of Fresno."Supreme Court of California, December 2018,available at: https://cegaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20CIub%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 34"Risk Assessment Guidelines:Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 35"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p.8-6,8-15 16 Page 871 Fifth,while the RIS/MND includes an HRA evaluating the Project's health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction,the HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together. According to OEHHA guidance, as referenced by the RIS/MND, "the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location" (p.4-13).36 However, the RIS/MND's HRA fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project's total construction and operation.This is incorrect and thus, an updated analysis should quantify the entirety of the Project's construction and operational health risks together and sum them to compare to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, as referenced by the RIS/MND (p. 4-15). 37 Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment,we relied upon AERSCREEN, a screening level air quality dispersion model.38 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA' and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated ("CAPCOA")40 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("HRSAs").A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project's operational health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors using the Project's annual PM10 exhaust estimates. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. Subtracting the 735-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction,the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project's operational DPM for an additional 27.99 years, approximately.The RIS/MND's annual CalEEMod output file indicates that operational activities will generate approximately 86 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.41 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources.To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project operation, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation: 36"Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p.8-4 3'"South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds."SCAQMD,April 2019,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scagmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 38"AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model." U.S. EPA,April 2011,available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.pdf. 39"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 4°"Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects."CAPCOA,July 2009,available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-09.pdf. 41 See Attachment A for calculations. 17 Page 872 grams 85.6 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate ( ) = x x x = 0.00123 g/s second 365 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00123 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 5.2-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with approximate dimensions of 205- by 103-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.The population of Rancho Cucamonga was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.42 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures,the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.43 According to the RIS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses located directly adjacent to the Project site (p.4-13). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR") is located approximately 100 meters from the Project site.Thus,the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.964 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1964 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR. We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.44 Consistent with the 735-day construction schedule,the annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the latter 0.24 years of the infant stage of life (0—2 years), as well as the entire child (2—16 years) and adult (16—30 years) stages of life. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, as recommended by SCAQMD and referenced by the IS/MND, we used Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASF(s)")to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution (p.4-15).45According to this guidance,the quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant). Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th 42"Rancho Cucamonga." U.S. Census Bureau, 2020,available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geold/0659451. 43"Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised." EPA, 1992,available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf;see also"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p.4-36. 44"Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Rule 1200 Health Risk Assessments(HRAs)."SDAPCD,July 2019, available at:https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Toxics Program/APCD 1200 Supplemental Guidelines.pdf. 45"Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 18 Page 873 percentile breathing rates for infants.46 Finally, consistent with OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home ("FAH")Value of 1 for the infant and child receptors, and a FAH value of 0.73 for adult receptors.47 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-'and an averaging time of 25,550 days.The results of our calculations are shown in the tables below. The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor A e Grou Emissions Duration Concentration Breathing Cancer Risk ASF Cancer Risk g p Source (years) (ug/m3) Rate(L/kg-day) (without ASFs*) (with ASFs*) 3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * 361 * 10 Construction 1.76 * 1090 Operation 0.24 0.1964 1090 7.62E-07 Infant Total 2 7.62E-07 10 7.62E-06 (Age 0-2) Child Operation 14 0.1964 572 2.37E-05 3 7.11E-05 (Age 2-16) Adult (Age 16 30) Operation 14 0.1964 261 7.89E-06 1 7.89E-06 Lifetime 30 3.24E-05 8.66E-05 *Cancer risk calculated separately in the RIS/MND. As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks to infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 7.62, 71.1, and 7.89 in one million, respectively.The excess cancer risk associated with the Project operation over the course of a residential lifetime is approximately 86.6 in one million. When summing the Project's operational cancer risk, as estimated by SWAPE, with the RIS/MND's construction-related cancer risk of 2.64 and 0.35 in one million,48 we estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 89.59 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) (p. 4-15;Table 4.3-4).49 As such,the 46"Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act."SCAQMD,June 2015,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19;see also"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 47"Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1,and 212."SCAQMD,August 2017,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf, p.7, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed- Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf. 48 It is important to note that the RIS/MND's construction-related cancer risk is underestimated,as it fails to start exposure in the third trimester of pregnancy. 49 Calculated:86.6 in one million+2.64 in one million+0.35 in one million=89.59 in one million. 19 Page 874 lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million,thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the RIS/MND. An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection.The purpose of the screening-level construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project's emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used.Thus, an EIR should be prepared, including a quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk assessment which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts The RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse ("GHG") emissions of 2,935.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year("MT CO2e/year"),which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year(p. 4-37,Table 4.8-1). Table 4.8-1. Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source Category Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e per year) Amortized Construction Emissions (Direct) 99.7 Area Source Emissions (Direct) 1-1.6 Energy Source Emissions (Indirect) 700.1 Mobile Source Emissions(Direct) 1,659.6 Solid Waste Disposal Emissions(indirect) 304.7 Water Suooly and Wastewater Treatment(Indirect) 159.5 Total Annual GHG Emissions 2,935.3 Threshold 3,000 Exceed Threshold? No Source: TAHA 2022 Furthermore,the RIS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS,the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan ("CAP") in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact(p.4-37—4-39). However,the RIS/MND's GHG analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons: (1) The RIS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The RIS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; (3) The RIS/MND fails to indicate a potentially significant GHG impact; and (4) SWAPE's updated analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. 20 Page 875 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated,the RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,935.3 MT CO2e/year(p.4-37,Table 4.8-1). However,the RIS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the Updated Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment Modeling Outputs as Appendix K to the RIS/MND, we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the RIS/MND. As a result,the model underestimates the Project's emissions, and the RIS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment. 2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated,the RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,935.3 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year(p.4-37,Table 4.8-1). However,the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold,the SCAQMD's 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as "AB 32", was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.50 Furthermore,AEP guidance states: "[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone."51 As it is currently March 2022,thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the RIS/MND's less-than- significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year("MT CO2e/SP/year"), which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.52 3) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact When applying the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets,the Project's incorrect and unsubstantiated air model 50"HEALTH &SAFETY CODE 38550."available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml?IawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 51"Beyond Newhall and 2020:A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California."Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP),October 2016,available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016 Final White Paper.pdf, p. 39. 52"Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group#15."SCAQMD,September 2010,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 21 Page 876 indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.53 As previously stated,the RIS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,935.3 MT CO2e/year(p. 4-37,Table 4.8-1). Furthermore, according to CAPCOA's CEQA & Climate Change report, service population ("SP") is defined as "the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project."54 The RIS/MND states: "With regards to the AQMP growth projections, operation of the proposed Project would introduce 260 new multi-family residential units to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, with an expected population of approximately 788 individuals as discussed in Section 4.14 Population and Housing" (p. 4-11). As such, we estimate a SP of 788 people. When dividing the Project's net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the RIS/MND, by a SP of 788 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 3.7 MT CO2e/SP/year(see table below).55 RIS/NMD Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 2,935.3 Service Population 788 Service Population Efficiency(MT CO2e/SP/year) 3.7 SCAQMD 2035 Target 3.0 Exceeds? Yes As demonstrated above,the Project's service population efficiency value, as estimated by the RIS/MND's provided net annual GHG emission estimates and SP, exceed the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the RIS/MND.As a result,the RIS/MND's less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon.An EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project's GHG emissions to less-than- significant levels. 4) Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, we prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the IS/MND. In our updated models,we included the correct land use sizes and solid waste generation rates; omitted the unsubstantiated changes to architectural and area coating emission factors,gas fireplace values, operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, and off-road equipment horsepower values; 53"Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group#15."SCAQMD,September 2010,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. s4"CEQA&Climate Change." CAPCOA,January 2008,available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf, p.71-72. ss Calculated: (2,935.3 MT CO2e/year)/(788 service population)=(3.7 MT CO2e/SP/year). 22 Page 877 incorporated Tier 4 Interim instead of Tier 4 Final emission standards; and excluded the incorrect operational mitigation measures.56 SWAPE's updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact,when applying the outdated SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year.The updated CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE with Project-specific information, disclose the Project's mitigated emissions,which include approximately 2,922 MT CO2e of total construction emissions (sum of 2022, 2023, and 2024) and approximately 3,637 MT CO2e/year of net annual operational emissions (sum of area-, energy-, mobile-, waste-, and water-related emissions). When amortizing the Project's construction-related GHG emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project's operational GHG emissions, we estimate net annual GHG emissions of approximately 3,734 MT CO2e/year(see table below). SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Phase Proposed Project (MT CO2e/year) Total Construction 2,921.81 Construction (amortized over 30 years) 97.39 Area 57.88 Energy 737.69 Mobile 2,371.12 Waste 310.42 Water 159.54 Annual Operational 3,636.65 Total Net Annual GHG Emissions 3,734.04 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Exceeds? Yes As demonstrated above,the Project's net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, exceed the outdated SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year,thus resulting in a significant impact not previously addressed or mitigated in the RIS/MND. As a result,the RIS/MND's less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon.An EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project's GHG emissions to less- than-significant levels. Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further.As such, in an effort to reduce the Project's emissions,we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project.Therefore,to reduce the Project's emissions,we recommend consideration of SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR's Air Quality Project 56 See Attachment C for CalEEMod output files. 23 Page 878 Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-AQ-1") and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-GHG-1"), as described below:57 SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045 Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures—PMM-AQ-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency: a) Minimize land disturbance. b)Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes. c)Cover trucks when hauling dirt. d)Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g)Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities. j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list(i.e., make, model,engine year, horsepower, emission rates)of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile)equipment(50 horsepower and greater)that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet. k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. I) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust;watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas.Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources(e.g., power poles)or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities.The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation,and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. "4.0 Mitigation Measures."Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum#1,September 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir connectsocal addendum 4 mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p.4.0-2—4.0-10;4.0-19— 4.0-23;See also: "Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report."Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG), May 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 24 Page 879 p)As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site,with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit.Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals,or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower(hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD"SOON" funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavy- duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP)for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t)Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships(EJCP),Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE),and Why Air Quality Matters programs. u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations(e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units,such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value(MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection,and maintenance program for the MERV filters. aa)Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. bb)The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible: - Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either(1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or(2)emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% - Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either(1)engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or(2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20%for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained,and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer. - Diesel vehicles,construction equipment,and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD)or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less. - The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles,construction equipment,and generators to be used on site.The list shall include the following: i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment. ii. Equipment type,equipment manufacturer,equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year,engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower,engine serial number,and expected fuel usage and hours of operation. iii. For the emission control technology installed:technology type,serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date. 25 Page 880 - The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site.Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters,the general public,and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals,schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing,and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that,for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment,or generator onsite, includes: i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site,the first and last day of every month,and on off-site date. ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify: 1. Source of supply 2. Quantity of fuel 3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content(percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards(California Building Standards Code).The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency: - Provide pedestrian network improvements,such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths,sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters,traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. - Provide traffic calming measures,such as: Marked crosswalks ii. Count-down signal timers iii. Curb extensions iv.Speed tables iv. Raised crosswalks v. Raised intersections vi. Median islands vii. Tight corner radii viii. Roundabouts or mini-circles ix. On-street parking x. Chicanes/chokers - Create urban non-motorized zones - Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects - Dedicate land for bike trails - Limit parking supply through: Elimination(or reduction)of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements iii. Provision of shared parking - Require residential area parking permit. - Provide ride-sharing programs Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement. Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures—PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency: b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design,or other measures,such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. 26 Page 881 c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project's emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology(BACT)during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero-and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient,such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible; x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above. e) Measures that encourage transit use,carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs,active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following: Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit; iv. Increase access to common goods and services,such as groceries,schools,and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project; vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks,or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures; x. Provide bicycle parking; xi. Limit or eliminate park supply; xii. Unbundle parking costs; xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs; xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities,and providing amenities incentivizing their use;and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network; g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments,and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h)Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities,and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that: Provide car-sharing, bike sharing,and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes; iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling,for example providing ride- matching services; 27 Page 882 iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle; v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work,such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking,and showers and locker rooms; vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: Developing on infill and brownfields sites; ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency,encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks,or charging for electric bicycles;and v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. k)Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible. I) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations,or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in. m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules,such as: Staggered starting times ii. Flexible schedules iii. Compressed work weeks n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing,such as: New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions iii. Publications o) Implement preferential parking permit program p) Implement school pool and bus programs q) Price workplace parking,such as: Explicitly charging for parking for its employees; ii. Implementing above market rate pricing; iii. Validating parking only for invited guests; iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives. These measures offer a cost-effective,feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are 28 Page 883 implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds.The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval,to ensure that the Project's significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented.This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, G�� fc�,GZ(/t2Ll Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files Attachment C: CalEEMod Output Files Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV Attachment E: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV 29 Page 884 Attachment A Operation Emission Rate Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0428 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.234520548 Total DPM (Ibs) 85.6 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001231233 Release Height (meters) 3 Total Acreage 5.2 Max Horizontal (meters) 205.15 Min Horizontal (meters) 102.58 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Setting Urban Population 174,453 Start Date 3/5/2022 End Date 3/9/2024 Total Construction Days 735 Total Years of Construction 2.01 Total Years of Operation 27.99 Page 885 Attachment B Start date and time 03/09/22 16:22:09 AERSCREEN 21112 Alta Cuvee, Operation Alta Cuvee, Operation DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** Emission Rate: 0.123E-02 g/s 0.977E-02 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 205.15 meters 673.06 feet Area Source Width: 102.58 meters 336.55 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 174453 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** Page 886 No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Page 887 Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*) : not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics. . . Page 888 Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 03/09/22 16:24:40 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 Page 889 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 890 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Page 891 Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 Page 892 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 Page 893 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 Page 894 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Page 895 Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 Page 896 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 Page 897 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 898 *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 03/09/22 16:24:50 REFINE started 03/09/22 16:24:50 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 899 *** NONE *** REFINE ended 03/09/22 16:24:51 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 03/09/22 16:24:53 Page 900 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.15020E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16425E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17610E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18610E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19637E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.19734E+01 103.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15377E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11000E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89502E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75200E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64408E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56051E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49393E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44001E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39580E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35826E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32688E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29975E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27646E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25606E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23804E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22221E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20821E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19563E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18421E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17390E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 901 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16458E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15613E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14843E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14130E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13475E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12873E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12316E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11801E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11319E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10871E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10454E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10064E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96972E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93512E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90263E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87208E-01 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84339E-01 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81621E-01 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79052E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76626E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74328E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72149E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70080E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68114E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66243E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64450E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62740E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 902 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61109E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59550E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58057E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56621E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55246E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53928E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52665E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51452E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50287E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49171E-01 1525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48094E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47057E-01 1575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46060E-01 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45098E-01 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44171E-01 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43277E-01 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42414E-01 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41580E-01 1725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40775E-01 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39997E-01 1775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39244E-01 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38516E-01 1825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37811E-01 1850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37128E-01 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36751E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36098E-01 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35466E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 903 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34852E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34257E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33679E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33117E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32572E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32042E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31526E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31025E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30538E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30064E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29602E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29152E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28715E-01 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28288E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27872E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27467E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27072E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26686E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26310E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25943E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25585E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25235E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24894E-01 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24560E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24234E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23916E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23605E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 904 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23300E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23003E-01 2675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22712E-01 2700.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22427E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22148E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21876E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21608E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21347E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21091E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20840E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20595E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20354E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20119E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19888E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19661E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19439E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19221E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19008E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18798E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18593E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18391E-01 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18193E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17999E-01 3199.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17808E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17621E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17437E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17257E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 905 file:///C/Users/swims/Downloads/2022.03.09 Aerscreen A1taCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17079E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16905E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16734E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16566E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16400E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16238E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16078E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15921E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15767E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15615E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15466E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15319E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15175E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15033E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14893E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14756E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14620E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14487E-01 3750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14356E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14227E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14100E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13975E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13852E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13730E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13611E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13493E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13377E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 906 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13263E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13150E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13039E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12930E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12822E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12716E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12611E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12508E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12406E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12306E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12207E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12110E-01 4275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12013E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11918E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11825E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11733E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11641E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11552E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11463E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11375E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11289E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11204E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11120E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11037E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10955E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10874E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10794E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 907 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10715E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10637E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10560E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10484E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10409E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10335E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10262E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10190E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10118E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10048E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99780E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99091E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98411E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97738E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 908 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.03.09_Aerscreen_AltaCuvee_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[3/16/2022 2:13:04 PM] Attachment C CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 5.54 + 1000sgft ; 0.13 T 5,537.00 i 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 328.00 + Space ; 0.00 131,200.00 + 0 Parking Lot 200.00 + Space ; 1.80 80,000.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,375.00 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.58 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 3,572.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 354,053.00 + 785 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 r r + I- Strip Mall 2.44 1000sgft 0.00 2,436.00 0 • • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 627.49 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) v co 15 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 0 o Project Characteristics - Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Residential Land Use Size" and "Underestimated Parking Land Use Size" CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Construction Phase-Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Off-road Equipment- Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Architectural Coating -See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips- Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Vehicle Emission Factors- Woodstoves - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values." Errgy Use - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Vftiater And Wastewater- Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Sgid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates" Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Final Mitigation" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation" Fleet Mix- See SWAPE comment regarding "Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix." CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 3 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Energy Mitigation - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Water Mitigation - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstEquipMitigation • NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 2.00 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 1.00 4 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 8.00 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 1.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 6.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 2.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 8.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 2.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 3.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim . 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim . 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim 4 4- 4 - tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim CD tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change 4 Tier 4 Interim ._w. 4 1 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier f No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier • ,i No Change Tier 4 Interim r • tblConstEquipMitigation Tier f No Change Tier 4 Interim r • tblConstructionPhase NumDays f 20.00 72.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 72.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 230.00 540.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 230.00 390.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 12.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 24.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 18.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 96.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays • ,i 20.00 108.00 r • tblConstructionPhase NumDays f 10.00 24.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 10.00 12.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • . c- tblConstructionPhase Y NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 o tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 co Iv tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 4 4 • tblEnergyUse T24E • 772.17 164.47 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblEnergyUse T24E 845.95 177.65 • tblEnergyUse T24E f 3.92 3.50 tblEnergyUse T24E • ,i 3.07 2.74 r • tblEnergyUse T24E f 4.58 4.09 r • tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass f 1,019.20 0.00 • tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass * 1,019.20 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace * 25.90 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace * 0.10 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberWood * 12.95 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberWood * 0.05 0.00 • tblGrading MaterialExported * 0.00 21,180.00 • tblGrading MaterialExported * 0.00 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet • ,i 5,540.00 5,537.00 r • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet f 14,374.80 14,375.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 3,580.00 3,572.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 259,000.00 354,053.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 1,000.00 1,570.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 2,440.00 2,436.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 2.95 0.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 0.08 0.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 6.82 3.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 0.06 0.00 • . c- tblLandUse Y LotAcreage * 0.06 0.00 CD tblLandUse Population * 741.00 785.00 co 0-1 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 5.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 5.00 . tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 6 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount • 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 3.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours * 6.00 8.00 . c- tblOffRoadEquipment Y UsageHours * 6.00 8.00 CD tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor * 702.44 627.49 co tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 119.14 584.00 t tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 0.03 0.00 t 4 4 • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate • 0.46 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 20.41 0.00 • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate i 2.56 28.10 T • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber ,i 2,648.00 2,880.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber f 1,324.00 1,440.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber f 0.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 67.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 67.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 0.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 13.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber • ,i 13.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 13.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips CC_TL * 8.40 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL * 6.90 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips CW_TL * 16.60 10.06 tblVehicleTrips • Y DV_TP * 11.00 T 0.00 CD co tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 v' tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 40.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL * 8.70 10.06 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 8 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TL f 5.90 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP ,i 19.20 20.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP f 19.20 20.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HW_TL f 14.70 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips H W_TTP * 40.20 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips H WTTP * 40.20 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP * 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP * 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP * 15.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP ,i 45.00 100.00 r • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR f 6.39 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 22.75 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 5.67 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 2.46 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 9.10 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 42.04 34.08 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 5.86 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 16.74 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 4.84 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips CD Y SU_TR * 1.05 T 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SUco _TR * 13.60 0.00 rn tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 20.43 34.08 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 6.65 5.48 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR f 11.03 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR ,i 33.82 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR i 44.32 34.08 r • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 16,874,892.64 24,295,400.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 65,154.03 0.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 984,644.96 0.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 211,732.46 0.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 180,736.95 2,979,860.00 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate * 603,492.07 0.00 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate * 110,774.26 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic * 12.95 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic • ,i 0.05 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic i 12.95 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic * 0.05 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass • ,i 999.60 0.00 t • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary v CD CO CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2022 •i 0.3077 2.9439 1 2.9131 8.6700e- 1 0.3829 0.0913 0.4741 1 0.0906 I 0.0866 0.1772 : 0.0000 i 786.8868 1 786.8868 0.0941 1 0.0000 i 789.2398 9 I I I 003 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 9 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 , . I I 1 1 I �1 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2023 •I 3.1367 1 5.7500 1 8.7114 0.0212 1 0.8649 0.2025 1.0674 1 0.2321 I 0.1954 ; 0.4276 : 0.0000 1 1,899.942 11,899.942 I 0.1992 1 0.0000 i 1,904.923 9 I I I I I I I 1 . 1 8 I 8 1 I 1 9 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I I I 1 I :1 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2024 •I 0.0833 1 0.5883 1 0.9628 2.5300e- 1 0.1247 0.0167 1 0.1414 1 0.0334 I 0.0162 ; 0.0496 : 0.0000 1 227.1850 1227.1850 1 0.0187 1 0.0000 i 227.6522 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Maximum 3.1367 5.7500 8.7114 0.0212 0.8649 0.2025 1.0674 0.2321 0.1954 0.4276 0.0000 1,899.942 1,899.942 0.1992 0.0000 1,904.923 8 8 9 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2 5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 •i 0.1913 1 2.3047 I 3.3178 1 8.6700e- I 0.3829 1 0.0149 I 0.3978 I 0.0906 1 0.0147 0.1053 : 0.0000 786.8864 I 786.8864 I 0.0941 I 0.0000 i 789.2394 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I 1 I I I •1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I I •1 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J t 13 •1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 fl1 2023 •1 2.9341 5.6849 9.4808 1 0.0212 1 0.8649 0.0632 0.9281 0.2321 1 0.0627 ; 0.2949 : 0.0000 11,899.941 1 1,899.941 0.1992 0.0000 1 1,904.922 9 1 I I I I I I I 1 8 I 8 I I 1 8 CO •1 1 I I I I I I I , ; I 1 I I I CD •1 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2024 •1 0.0642 0.5996 1.0423 2.5300e- 1 0.1247 3.7100e- 0.1284 1 0.0334 3.6500e- ; 0.0371 : 0.0000 1227.1849 227.1849 0.0187 0.0000 : 227.6520 a) 9 I I 1 003 1 1 003 1 I 1 003 . I I I I I 1 I I I I I I . 1 I I I Maximum 2.9341 5.6849 9.4808 0.0212 0.8649 0.0632 0.9281 0.2321 0.0627 0.2949 0.0000 1,899.941 1,899.941 0.1992 0.0000 1,904.922 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 9.58 7.47 -9.96 0.00 0.00 73.65 13.58 0.00 72.81 33.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) 1 3-5-2022 6-4-2022 1.0409 0.6503 2 6-5-2022 9-4-2022 0.6314 0.5954 3 9-5-2022 12-4-2022 1.0487 0.8075 4 12-5-2022 3-4-2023 1.1862 1.0962 5 3-5-2023 6-4-2023 1.7816 1.7257 6 6-5-2023 9-4-2023 2.8553 2.7654 7 9-5-2023 12-4-2023 3.1483 3.0713 8 12-5-2023 3-4-2024 0.9541 0.9340 9 3-5-2024 6-4-2024 0.0274 0.0264 Highest 3.1483 3.0713 0) Cr; co CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Area •i 1.5321 I 0.0768 I 2.7065 I 4.3000e- I I 0.0186 I 0.0186 I I 0.0186 0.0186 � 0.0000 i 57.4636 I 57.4636 I 5.2500e- 9.7000e- i 57.8849 •1 I I 1 004 1 I I I I . 1 I 1 003 1 004 I'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 I I I :1 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Energy •I 0.0209 I 0.1788 I 0.0766 I 1.1400e- I I 0.0145 1 0.0145 I I 0.0145 0.0145 0.0000 1 734.3489 1734.3489 I 0.0283 I 8.8400e- i 737.6910 •1 1 I 1 003 I I 1 I I . 1 I 1 I 003 1'1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 I I :1 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Mobile •I 0.4302 I 2.9752 I 5.6448 I 0.0255 I 2.0948 I 0.0155 I 2.1103 I 0.5614 I 0.0144 0.5758 : 0.0000 1 2,368.464 12,368.464 I 0.1061 I 0.0000 i 2,371.116 •1 I I 1 I 1 I I I . 1 1 I 1 I I I 7'1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I I :1 J J J 1 J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Waste •1 1 1 1 1 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 : 125.2962 1 0.0000 1125.2962 I 7.4048 I 0.0000 i 310.4160 •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 '1 1 I I I I I I I , . 1 1 I I 1 :1 J J J 1 J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Water .1 I 1 I 1 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 : 8.6532 1 136.5093 1145.1625 I 0.8951 I 0.0223 i 174.1820 •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I I •1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I I Total 1.9832 3.2308 8.4279 0.0271 2.0948 0.0485 2.1433 0.5614 0.0474 0.6088 133.9494 3,296.785 3,430.735 8.4396 0.0321 3,651.290 8 2 5 0) to CD tV 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 Area •i 1.5321 1 0.0768 1 2.7065 1 4.3000e- I 1 0.0186 1 0.0186 1 1 0.0186 0.0186 : 0.0000 1 57.4636 1 57.4636 1 5.2500e- 19.7000e- i 57.8849 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 004 I 'I 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J T I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 1 Energy •1 0.0209 1 0.1788 1 0.0766 1 1.1400e- 1 0.0145 1 0.0145 1 1 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 1 734.3489 1 734.3489 1 0.0283 18.8400e- i 737.6910 9 I I 1 003 I I I I I . I I I I 003 1'1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 I 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J I 1 I : I I I I I 1 1 Mobile •1 0.4302 1 2.9752 1 5.6448 1 0.0255 2.0948 1 0.0155 1 2.1103 1 0.5614 1 0.0144 0.5758 : 0.0000 1 2,368.464 1 2,368.464 1 0.1061 I 0.0000 i 2,371.116 9 1 I 1 I 1 I I I . I 1 I 1 1 I 1 7 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 • J J J J J J J J . I J J J -r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Waste •1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 125.2962 1 0.0000 1 125.2962 1 7.4048 I 0.0000 i 310.4160 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I 1 I I I I I , . I 1 1 I 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J -r I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 Water •1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 7.8744 1 125.2508 1 133.1252 1 0.8146 i 0.0203 i 159.5371 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 I 1 '1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I . I I 1 I I Total 1.9832 3.2308 8.4279 0.0271 2.0948 0.0485 2.1433 0.5614 0.0474 0.6088 133.1706 3,285.527 3,418.697 8.3591 0.0301 3,636.645 3 8 I 5 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.34 0.35 0.95 6.23 0.40 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Cstruction Phase v co o co IV 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 :Demolition :Demolition 13/5/2022 :3/18/2022 : 6: 12 + I 1 1 2 :Site Preparation :Grading 14/4/2022 :4/30/2022 : 61 24: + I 1 1 3 :Trenching/Utilities-East Building +Site Preparation 15/2/2022 :5/28/2022 : 61 24 I + i i 4 :Construction-East Building :Building Construction 15/30/2022 :2/17/2024 : 61 540: + I 1 1 5 :Grading :Grading i 11/7/2022 :11/26/2022 : 61 18 + I 1 I 6 :Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation i 11/28/2022 :12/10/2022 : 61 12: + I 1 4 7 :Construction-West Building :Building Construction i 12/12/2022 :3/9/2024 : 61 390: + I 1 1 8 :Paving-East Building :Paving 15/8/2023 :9/9/2023 : 6: 108 + I 1 1 9 :Architectural Coatings-East Bldg :Architectural Coating 15/8/2023 :7/29/2023 : 61 72: + I 1 1 10 :Paving-West Building :Paving 18/7/2023 :11/25/2023 : 61 96: + i• 1 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:Architectural Coating :9/11/2023 :12/2/2023 6• 72 I Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 Acres of Paving: 1.8 Residential Indoor: 720,137; Residential Outdoor: 240,046; Non-Residential Indoor: 11,960; Non-Residential Outdoor: 3,987; Striped Parking Area: 12,672 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws , 11 8.00 81: 0.73 Dtgnolition :Excavators , 11 8.004 158' 0.38 r i -I-Demolition :Generator Sets , 21 4.00, 84• 0.74 N Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 01 8.00, 247' 0.40 + i• r Demolition :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1. 8.00' 97' 0.37 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Site Preparation •Crawler Tractors 2 8.00• 212• 0.43 Site Preparation Excavators ; 0 8.001 158: 0.38 --+ e Site Preparation Graders ; 1! 8.001 187' 0.41 --+ e Site Preparation +Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --+ e Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 , Site Preparation Scrapers ; 1 8.001 367' 0.48 --+ Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ e Trenching/Utilities-East Building +Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 , Trenching/Utilities-East Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0 8.001 247' 0.40 i _ Trenching/Utilities-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.001 97' 0.37 Trenching/Utilities-East Building Trenchers ; 2 8.001 78' 0.50 --+ Construction-East Building Aerial Lifts ; 2; 7.001 63' 0.31 , Construction-East Building cranes ; 0 7.001 231' 0.29 --+ Construction-East Building +Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 , Construction-East Building Generator Sets ; 2 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-East Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 Construction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 --+ e Construction-East Building !Welders ; 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 --+ e Grading +Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 e Grading Excavators ; 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 i_ _ Grading Graders ; 1! 8.001 187' 0.41 i_ _ Grading Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 Gr ding +Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 G ceding Scrapers . 1 8.001 367' 0.48 •-P.i - - --' Grating +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 8.00' 97' 0.37 --+ e Trenching/Utilities-West Building crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.00' 212' 0.43 * F Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Rubber Tired Dozers 0' 8.00' 247: 0.40 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • Trenching/Utilities-West Building •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1• 8.00• 97• 0.37 Trenching/Utilities-West Building Trenchers ; 2 8.001 78: 0.50 --+ Construction-West Building Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --+ Construction-West Building Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --+ Construction-West Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-West Building :Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --+ Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 --+ Construction-West Building Welders ; 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 --+ Paving-East Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --+ Paving-East Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 --+ Paving-East Building Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --+ Architectural Coatings-East Bldg +Air Compressors ; 5; 8.001 78' 0.48 --+ Paving-West Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --+ Paving-West Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 --+ Paving-West Building Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 * F Architectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 5' 8.00' 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT v CD CO N CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 5; 40.00: 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT ' I I I _, i Site Preparation 6; 40.00i O.001 0.00� 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;-LD_Mix �HDT_Mix THHDT 1 I - I ' J -i T Trenching/Utilities- 5; 40.00. 0.00i 2,880.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix HHDT Cnc+1:211i1.+inn £ • I I I I j Construction-East j 6; 200.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Q 11;I.J;..., £ , I I I I j -1 - T Grading • 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix HHDT 1 I - I ' J -i T Trenching/Utilities- 5; 40.00. 0.00i 1,440.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix HHDT U/.,c+1:21 dlclin., • I I I I Construction-West i 4; 200.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;-LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q 11;I.J;..., , I I I I J Paving-East Building i6; 40.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT ' 1 I I ' J Architectural Coatings 5: 40.00i 0.00i 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;-LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT C_c+QIr1_ ' ' I I I I Paving-West Building; 6: 40.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT 1 1 I , i r I- r * - -- T + T Architectural Coatings : 5' 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix 'HHDT \Nnc+1:2I.11-1 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area v CD CO N O1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr iOff-Road • 6.3300e- I 0.0551 : 0.0770 I 1.3000e- I I 2.8400e- I 2.8400e- 1 I 2.7500e- 2.7500e- .• 0.0000 i 10.9785 I 10.9785 I 1 7500e- I 0.0000 i 11.0222 :i 003 I I i 004 : I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . 1 I I 003 Total 6.3300e- 0.0551 0.0770 1.3000e- 2.8400e- 2.8400e- 2.7500e- 2.7500e- 0.0000 10.9785 10.9785 1.7500e- 0.0000 11.0222 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I , 1 I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - I 1 I I I : : I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 ' '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 1 Worker - 1.0300e- I 7.5000e- I 7.8400e- I 2.0000e- I 2.6300e- I 2.0000e- I 2.6500e- I 7.0000e- I 2.0000e- 7.1000e- • 0.0000 I 2.1051 1 2.1051 I 5.0000e- I 0.0000 : 2.1064 cc) '1 003 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 . ' I 1 005 1 I CD '1 I I I I I I I I , I 1 1 1 1 CO Total 1.0300e- 7.5000e- 7.8400e- 2.0000e- 2.6300e- 2.0000e- 2.6500e- 7.0000e- 2.0000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 2.1051 2.1051 5.0000e- 0.0000 2.1064 6) 003 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr ' __I.__Off-Road •i 2.2100e- I 0.0493 I 0.0851 I 1.3000e- I I 1.8000e- I 1 8000e- I I 1.8000e- : 1.8000e- .• 0.0000 1 10.9785 I 10.9785 I 1 7500e- I 0.0000 i 11.0222 9 003 I I I 004 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 . 1 I I 003 Total 2.2100e- 0.0493 0.0851 1.3000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 0.0000 10.9785 10.9785 1.7500e- 0.0000 11.0222 003 004 004 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I , 1 I I 1 'I J J J J J J J J I J J J - I 1 I I I : : I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 ' ' J J J J J J J J J J J 1 Worker • 1.0300e- I 7.5000e- I 7.8400e- I 2.0000e- I 2.6300e- I 2.0000e- I 2.6500e- I 7.0000e- I 2.0000e- 7.1000e- • 0.0000 I 2.1051 1 2.1051 I 5.0000e- I 0.0000 : 2.1064 cc) '1 003 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 . ' I 1 005 1 I CD '1 I I I I I I I I , I 1 1 1 1 CO Total 1.0300e- 7.5000e- 7.8400e- 2.0000e- 2.6300e- 2.0000e- 2.6500e- 7.0000e- 2.0000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 2.1051 2.1051 5.0000e- 0.0000 2.1064 v 003 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 I 1 0.0318 1 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0318 :1 3.4400e- I 1 0.0000 3.4400e- •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 :1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I 0 03 I 00 3 . I 1 I I 1 '1 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 I 1 f1 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T I : I 1 1 I : I 1 : I I Off-Road •I 0.0306 1 0.3560 0.1974 1 5.1000e- 1 1 0.0140 1 0.0140 1 0.0129 0.0129 : 0.0000 1 45.0455 45.0455 1 0.0146 1 0.0000 i 45.4097 9 I I I 004 1 I I I I . 1 I I 1 9 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 Total 0.0306 0.3560 0.1974 5.1000e- 0.0318 0.0140 0.0458 3.4400e- 0.0129 0.0163 0.0000 45.0455 45.0455 0.0146 0.0000 45.4097 004 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I 1 'I J J J J J J J J I J J J - Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 ' ' J J J J J J J J J J J 1 Worker • 2.0700e- I 1.5000e- 1 0.0157 I 5.0000e- I 5.2600e- I 3.0000e- I 5.3000e- I 1.4000e- I 3.0000e- 1.4300e- • 0.0000 I 4.2102 I 4.2102 I 1.1000e- I 0.0000 : 4.2129 cc) 'I 003 I 003 I 1 005 1 003 I 005 1 003 I 003 1 005 003 . I I 1 004 1 I CD 'I I I I I 1 I I I . I 1 1 1 1 N Total 2.0700e- 1.5000e- 0.0157 5.0000e- 5.2600e- 3.0000e- 5.3000e- 1.4000e- 3.0000e- 1.4300e- 0.0000 4.2102 4.2102 1.1000e- 0.0000 4.2129 co 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 I 1 0.0318 1 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0318 :1 3.4400e- I 1 0.0000 ; 3.4400e- •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 :1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I 1 I I 1 '1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 . I 1 1 I 1 f1 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T I I : I I 1 I : I I : I I Off-Road •I 8.7800e- 1 0.1463 0.2871 1 5.1000e- 1 1 8.4000e- 1 8.4000e- 1 8.4000e- 8.4000e- � 0.0000 1 45.0454 45.0454 1 0.0146 1 0.0000 i 45.4096 'I 003 I I 004 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 . I 1 I I 1 ;I I I : I 1 I I 1 . I 1 1 1 Total 8.7800e- 0.1463 0.2871 5.1000e- 0.0318 8.4000e- 0.0327 3.4400e- 8.4000e- 4.2800e- 0.0000 45.0454 45.0454 0.0146 0.0000 45.4096 003 004 004 003 004 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I 1 'I J J J J J J J J I J J J - Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 ' ' J J J J J J J J J J J I Worker • 2.0700e- I 1.5000e- 1 0.0157 I 5.0000e- I 5.2600e- I 3.0000e- I 5.3000e- I 1.4000e- I 3.0000e- 1.4300e- • 0.0000 I 4.2102 I 4.2102 I 1.1000e- I 0.0000 : 4.2129 cc) -I 003 I 003 I 1 005 1 003 I 005 1 003 I 003 1 005 003 . I I 1 004 1 I CD 'I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I . I 1 I I 1 CO Total 2.0700e- 1.5000e- 0.0157 5.0000e- 5.2600e- 3.0000e- 5.3000e- 1.4000e- 3.0000e- 1.4300e- 0.0000 4.2102 4.2102 1.1000e- 0.0000 4.2129 co 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Trenching/Utilities - East Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I I Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 1 0.0139 1 0.0000 1 0.0139 : 1.5600e- 1 0.0000 1.5600e- •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 '1 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I I 1 '1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T I : I 1 1 1 1 I 1 : I I Off-Road •I 0.0225 1 0.2454 0.1448 1 3.1000e- 1 1 0.0123 1 0.0123 1 1 0.0113 0.0113 •• 0.0000 1 26.9238 26.9238 1 8.7100e- 1 0.0000 i 27.1415 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I 003 I 1 9 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 I I 1 Total 0.0225 0.2454 0.1448 3.1000e- 0.0139 0.0123 0.0262 1.5600e- 0.0113 0.0129 0.0000 26.9238 26.9238 8.7100e- 0.0000 27.1415 004 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I Hauling •1 8.2500e- 1 0.3078 1 0.0524 1 1.0900e- 1 0.0248 1 7.7000e- 1 0.0256 1 6.8100e- 1 7.4000e- � 7.5500e- � 0.0000 1 105.4147 1 105.4147 1 5.8500e- 1 0.0000 i 105.5610 •I 003 I I I 003 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . 1 I I 003 I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 'I J J J J J J J J I J J J I : I I : I : I 1 I I Vendor 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 ' ' J J J J J J J J J J J 1 Worker • 2.0700e- I 1.5000e- I 0.0157 I 5.0000e- I 5.2600e- I 3.0000e- I 5.3000e- I 1.4000e- I 3.0000e- 1.4300e- • 0.0000 I 4.2102 I 4.2102 I 1.1000e- I 0.0000 1 4.2129 cc) 'I 003 I 003 I 1 005 1 003 I 005 1 003 I 003 1 005 003 . ' I 1 004 1 I CD 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 W Total 0.0103 0.3093 0.0680 1.1400e- 0.0300 8.0000e- 0.0309 8.2100e- 7.7000e- 8.9800e- 0.0000 109.6248 109.6248 5.9600e- 0.0000 109.7739 0 003 004 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Trenching/Utilities - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Fugitive Dust •i 1 i i I 0.0139 I 0.0000 I 0.0139 11.5600e- I 0.0000 ; 1.5600e- : 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 '1 I I I I I 003 I 003 • 1 I I I 1 '1 I I I 1 1 I I I , I I 1 1 f1 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 Off-Road •1 5.7400e- I 0.1014 I 0.1895 1 3.1000e- I 15.0000e- 15.0000e- 15.0000e- I 5.0000e- i 0.0000 1 26.9238 I 26.9238 1 8.7100e- I 0.0000 i 27.1415 9 003 I I 1 004 1 I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 1 I 1 003 1 1 '1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 I I 1 Total 1 5.7400e- 0.1014 0.1895 3.1000e- 0.0139 5.0000e- 0.0144 1.5600e- 5.0000e- 2.0600e- 0.0000 26.9238 26.9238 8.7100e- 0.0000 27.1415 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 Hauling •1 8.2500e- 1 0.3078 1 0.0524 1 1.0900e- 1 0.0248 1 7.7000e- 1 0.0256 1 6.8100e- 1 7.4000e- 7.5500e- : 0.0000 1 105.4147 1 105.4147 1 5.8500e- 1 0.0000 1 105.5610 •1 003 I I I 003 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . 1 I I 003 I 1 'I I I I I I I I I • . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J .• I J J J I I I I I I I I I I I Vendor •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I • • I I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J J J J •_'[� el I I ' 1 I 1 V Worker •1 2.0700e- I 1.5000e- 1 0.0157 1 5.0000e- I 5.2600e- I 3.0000e- I 5.3000e- I 1.4000e- I 3.0000e- I 1.4300e- : 0.0000 1 4.2102 1 4.2102 1.1000e- 1 0.0000 : 4.2129 cra •1 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 1 1 1 004 1 1 CD '1 I I I I I I I I • • 1 I I I 1 W Total 0.0103 0.3093 0.0680 1.1400e- 0.0300 8.0000e- 0.0309 8.2100e- 7.7000e- 8.9800e- 0.0000 109.6248 109.6248 5.9600e- 0.0000 109.7739 003 004 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I Off-Road •i 0.0881 1 0.9112 1 1.2874 1 2.1400e- 1 1 0.0386 1 0.0386 1 1 0.0377 : 0.0377 � 0.0000 i 185.4550 185.4550 1 0.0310 1 0.0000 i 186.2294 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I I 1 9 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0881 0.9112 1.2874 2.1400e- 0.0386 0.0386 0.0377 0.0377 0.0000 185.4550 185.4550 0.0310 0.0000 186.2294 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J •J J J J J J J J J J 4. I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I Vendor 9 9.1900e- 1 0.3428 1 0.0682 1 9.8000e- 1 0.0235 1 5.2000e- 1 0.0240 1 6.7700e- 1 5.0000e- � 7.2700e- • 0.0000 93.7047 1 93.7047 1 6.1500e- 1 0.0000 i 93.8584 •I 003 I I I 004 1 I 004 1 I 003 1 004 003 . I 1 003 1 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 -I J J J J J J J J J J J •1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I Worker -1 0.0801 I 0.0582 1 0.6078 I 1.8000e- I 0.2039 1 1.2900e- I 0.2052 1 0.0542 I 1.1900e- 0.0554 • 0.0000 I 163.1432 1 163.1432 1 4.2500e- I 0.0000 i 163.2494 co 9 I 1 I 003 1 1 003 I 1 I 003 . I I 1 003 1 1 CD •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 W Total 0.0892 0.4009 0.6760 2.7800e- 0.2274 1.8100e- 0.2292 0.0609 1.6900e- 0.0626 0.0000 256.8479 256.8479 0.0104 0.0000 257.1079 N 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I Off-Road •i 0.0436 1 0.8708 1 1.4474 1 2.1400e- 1 1 8.9600e- 1 8.9600e- 1 1 8.9600e- 8.9600e- � 0.0000 i 185.4548 1 185.4548 1 0.0310 1 0.0000 i 186.2291 •I I I I 003 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . 1 I I I 1 9 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0436 0.8708 1.4474 2.1400e- 8.9600e- 8.9600e- 8.9600e- 8.9600e- 0.0000 185.4548 185.4548 0.0310 0.0000 186.2291 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J •J J J J J J J J J J 4. I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I Vendor 9 9.1900e- 1 0.3428 1 0.0682 1 9.8000e- 1 0.0235 1 5.2000e- 1 0.0240 1 6.7700e- 1 5.0000e- � 7.2700e- • 0.0000 93.7047 1 93.7047 1 6.1500e- 1 0.0000 i 93.8584 9 003 I I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . I I 003 I 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 -I J J J J J J J J J J J •I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I Worker -1 0.0801 1 0.0582 1 0.6078 1 1.8000e- 1 0.2039 1 1.2900e- 1 0.2052 1 0.0542 1 1.1900e- 0.0554 • 0.0000 I 163.1432 1 163.1432 1 4.2500e- 1 0.0000 1 163.2494 co 9 I 1 I 003 I I 003 I 1 I 003 . I I I 003 I 1 CD 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 W Total 0.0892 0.4009 0.6760 2.7800e- 0.2274 1.8100e- 0.2292 0.0609 1.6900e- 0.0626 0.0000 256.8479 256.8479 0.0104 0.0000 257.1079 W 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I I I 1 I T : I I Off-Road •i 0.1379 1 1.4294 1 2.1566 1 3.5900e- 1 1 0.0566 1 0.0566 1 1 0.0552 : 0.0552 .• 0.0000 1 311.0997 311.0997 1 0.0513 1 0.0000 i 312.3832 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1379 1.4294 2.1566 3.5900e- 0.0566 0.0566 0.0552 0.0552 0.0000 311.0997 311.0997 0.0513 0.0000 312.3832 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I Hauling �i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 .I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J •J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I I I I Vendor 9 0.0116 1 0.4433 1 0.0987 1 1.6000e- 1 0.0393 1 4.3000e- 1 0.0398 1 0.0114 1 4.1000e- � 0.0118 � 0.0000 152.8593 1 152.8593 1 8.2900e- 1 0.0000 i 153.0665 9 I I I 003 I I 004 I I I 004 . I I 003 I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 'I J J J J J J J J J J J 'I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Worker •I 0.1258 I 0.0878 1 0.9345 I 2.9100e- I 0.3421 1 2.1100e- I 0.3442 1 0.0909 I 1.9400e- 0.0928 • 0.0000 263.3840 1 263.3840 1 6.3800e- I 0.0000 1 263.5436 co 91 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 CD I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 W Total 0.1374 0.5311 1.0332 4.5100e- 0.3814 2.5400e- 0.3840 0.1022 2.3500e- 0.1046 0.0000 416.2433 416.2433 0.0147 0.0000 416.6101 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 Off-Road •i 0.0731 1 1.4607 1 2.4279 3.5900e- 1 1 0.0150 1 0.0150 1 0.0150 0.0150 : 0.0000 1 311.0993 1 311.0993 1 0.0513 0.0000 i 312.3828 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0731 1.4607 2.4279 3.5900e- 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0150 0.0000 311.0993 311.0993 0.0513 0.0000 312.3828 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I Hauling �i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 .1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J •J J J J J J J - J J J 4. 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I Vendor 9 0.0116 0.4433 1 0.0987 1 1.6000e- 1 0.0393 1 4.3000e- 1 0.0398 1 0.0114 1 4.1000e- � 0.0118 � 0.0000 152.8593 152.8593 8.2900e- 1 0.0000 i 153.0665 9 I I I 003 I I 004 I I I 004 . I I 003 I 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 •I J J J J J J J J J J J •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Worker •1 0.1258 0.0878 1 0.9345 2.9100e- 0.3421 2.1100e- 0.3442 0.0909 1.9400e- 0.0928 • 0.0000 263.3840 1 263.3840 6.3800e- 0.0000 i 263.5436 co 91 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 CD I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 W Total 0.1374 0.5311 1.0332 4.5100e- 0.3814 2.5400e- 0.3840 0.1022 2.3500e- 0.1046 0.0000 416.2433 416.2433 0.0147 0.0000 416.6101 (Ti 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I Off-Road •i 0.0175 1 0.1829 1 0.2902 1 4.8000e- 1 1 6.7100e- 1 6.7100e- 1 1 6.5500e- 6.5500e- � 0.0000 1 41.8762 1 41.8762 1 6.8300e- 1 0.0000 i 42.0469 •I I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . 1 I I 003 I 1 9 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 Total 0.0175 0.1829 0.2902 4.8000e- 6.7100e- 6.7100e- 6.5500e- 6.5500e- 0.0000 41.8762 41.8762 6.8300e- 0.0000 42.0469 004 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J •J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I Vendor 9 1.5400e- 1 0.0600 1 0.0128 1 2.1000e- 1 5.3000e- 1 6.0000e- 1 5.3500e- 1 1.5300e- 1 6.0000e- � 1.5800e- • 0.0000 20.5543 1 20.5543 1 1.1200e- 1 0.0000 i 20.5821 9 003 I I I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 . I I 003 I 1 9 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 -I J J J J J J J J J J J •I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I Worker -1 0.0160 I 0.0107 1 0.1171 I 3.8000e- I 0.0461 1 2.8000e- I 0.0463 1 0.0122 1 2.6000e- 0.0125 • 0.0000 34.3054 1 34.3054 1 7.8000e- I 0.0000 i 34.3250 co 91 I I I 004 I I 004 I I I 004 . I I 004 I 1 CD I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 W Total 0.0175 0.0707 0.1299 5.9000e- 0.0514 3.4000e- 0.0517 0.0138 3.2000e- 0.0141 0.0000 54.8597 54.8597 1.9000e- 0.0000 54.9072 CS> 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road • 9.8400e- I 0.1966 I 0.3268 I 4.8000e- I I 2.0200e- I 2.0200e- 1 I 2.0200e- 2.0200e- .• 0.0000 1 41.8762 I 41.8762 I 6.8300e- I 0.0000 i 42.0469 9 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . 1 I I 003 Total 9.8400e- 0.1966 0.3268 4.8000e- 2.0200e- 2.0200e- 2.0200e- 2.0200e- 0.0000 41.8762 41.8762 6.8300e- 0.0000 42.0469 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I I I • I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J •J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor • 1.5400e- I 0.0600 1 0.0128 I 2.1000e- I 5.3000e- I 6.0000e- I 5.3500e- I 1.5300e- I 6.0000e- 1.5800e- • 0.0000 20.5543 1 20.5543 I 1.1200e- I 0.0000 i 20.5821 9 003 I I I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 . I I 003 I 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I , I I I 1 -1 J J J J J J J J J J J .1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I Worker -1 0.0160 1 0.0107 I 0.1171 1 3.8000e- 1 0.0461 I 2.8000e- 1 0.0463 I 0.0122 1 2.6000e- 0.0125 • 0.0000 34.3054 1 34.3054 1 7.8000e- 1 0.0000 1 34.3250 co 91 I I I 004 I I 004 I I I 004 . I I 004 I 1 CD I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 W Total 0.0175 0.0707 0.1299 5.9000e- 0.0514 3.4000e- 0.0517 0.0138 3.2000e- 0.0141 0.0000 54.8597 54.8597 1.9000e- 0.0000 54.9072 v 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 I 1 0.0239 1 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0239 :1 2.5800e- I 1 0.0000 ; 2.5800e- •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 :1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 -I I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I I 1 -I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 I 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I : I 1 1 I : I I : I I Off-Road •I 0.0230 1 0.2670 0.1480 1 3.8000e- 1 1 0.0105 1 0.0105 1 9.6800e- 9.6800e- � 0.0000 1 33.7841 33.7841 1 0.0109 1 0.0000 i 34.0573 -I I I 1 004 1 I I I I 003 003 . 1 I I I 1 9 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 Total 0.0230 0.2670 0.1480 3.8000e- 0.0239 0.0105 0.0344 2.5800e- 9.6800e- 0.0123 0.0000 33.7841 33.7841 0.0109 0.0000 34.0573 004 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J •J J J J J J J J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 • - J J J J J J J J J J J I Worker - 1.5500e- I 1.1300e- 1 0.0118 I 3.0000e- I 3.9500e- I 2.0000e- I 3.9700e- I 1.0500e- I 2.0000e- 1.0700e- • 0.0000 I 3.1576 1 3.1576 I 8.0000e- I 0.0000 : 3.1597 cc) •1 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 1 003 I 005 003 . 1 I I 005 W Total 1.5500e- 1.1300e- 0.0118 3.0000e- 3.9500e- 2.0000e- 3.9700e- 1.0500e- 2.0000e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 3.1576 3.1576 8.0000e- 0.0000 3.1597 Co 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 0.0239 1 0.0000 1 0.0239 : 2.5800e- 1 0.0000 ; 2.5800e- •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 •I I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I I 1 •I 1 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I : I I 1 I : I I : I I Off-Road •I 6.5900e- 1 0.1098 0.2153 1 3.8000e- 1 1 6.3000e- 1 6.3000e- 1 6.3000e- 6.3000e- � 0.0000 1 33.7841 33.7841 1 0.0109 1 0.0000 i 34.0572 9 003 I I 004 I I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 1 I I I 1 ;I I I : I I I I 1 . I 1 1 1 Total 6.5900e- 0.1098 0.2153 3.8000e- 0.0239 6.3000e- 0.0245 2.5800e- 6.3000e- 3.2100e- 0.0000 33.7841 33.7841 0.0109 0.0000 34.0572 003 004 004 003 004 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I , 1 I I 1 -I J J J J J J J J I J J J - Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 • - J J J J J J J J J J J I Worker • 1.5500e- I 1.1300e- I 0.0118 I 3.0000e- I 3.9500e- I 2.0000e- I 3.9700e- I 1.0500e- I 2.0000e- 1.0700e- • 0.0000 I 3.1576 1 3.1576 I 8.0000e- I 0.0000 : 3.1597 cc) •1 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 1 003 I 005 003 : 1 I I 005 W Total 1.5500e- 1.1300e- 0.0118 3.0000e- 3.9500e- 2.0000e- 3.9700e- 1.0500e- 2.0000e- 1.0700e- 0.0000 3.1576 3.1576 8.0000e- 0.0000 3.1597 CO 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Fugitive Dust •i 1 i i 16.9600e- I 0.0000 16.9600e- 17.8000e- I 0.0000 ; 7.8000e- : 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 •� I I I 1 003 1 I 003 I 004 I 004 • 1 I I I I ;� I I I 1 I I I I • 1 1 1 I • J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 Off-Road •1 0.0113 I 0.1227 I 0.0724 1 1.5000e- I 16.1300e- 16.1300e- 15.6400e- I 5.6400e- • 0.0000 1 13.4619 I 13.4619 14.3500e- I 0.0000 i 13.5708 •I 1 I 1 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 I 003 003 • 1 I 1 003 1 1 •1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 Il • I 1 I 1 1 Total 0.0113 0.1227 0.0724 1.5000e- 6.9600e- 6.1300e- 0.0131 7.8000e- 5.6400e- 6.4200e- 0.0000 13.4619 13.4619 4.3500e- 0.0000 13.5708 004 003 003 004 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 Hauling •1 4.1200e- I 0.1539 I 0.0262 I 5.5000e- I 0.0124 I 3.9000e- I 0.0128 I 3.4000e- I 3.7000e- ; 3.7700e- : 0.0000 1 52.7073 I 52.7073 I 2.9300e- I 0.0000 1 52.7805 •1 003 I I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . I I I 003 I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I : . I 1 I I 1 . J J J J J J J J • J J J I I I I I I I I I I I Vendor .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •I 1 I I I I I I I : . I I I I •1 J J J J J J J J J J J -•[3 •1 I I I I I I I I ' 1 1 1 Worker •1 1.0300e- 17.5000e- 17.8400e- 12.0000e- 12.6300e- 12.0000e- 12.6500e- 17.0000e- 12.0000e- I 7.1000e- • 0.0000 I 2.1051 I 2.1051 15.0000e- I 0.0000 : 2.1064 cra :; 003 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 1 I 1 005 I 1 CD I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 Total • 5.1500e- 0.1547 0.0340 5.7000e- 0.0150 4.1000e- 0.0154 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 4.4800e- 0.0000 54.8124 54.8124 2.9800e- 0.0000 54.8870 0 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 6.9600e- 1 0.0000 1 6.9600e- 1 7.8000e- 1 0.0000 ; 7.8000e- •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 '1 I I I I 003 I I 003 I 004 I 004 . 1 I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I , • I I I I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 1 1 : I I : I I Off-Road •1 2.8700e- 1 0.0507 1 0.0948 1 1.5000e- 1 1 2.5000e- 1 2.5000e- 1 2.5000e- : 2.5000e- •• 0.0000 1 13.4619 13.4619 1 4.3500e- 1 0.0000 i 13.5707 9 003 I I I 004 1 I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 I 1 I I 9 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 , I 1 I 003 I 1 Total 2.8700e- 0.0507 0.0948 1.5000e- 6.9600e- 2.5000e- 7.2100e- 7.8000e- 2.5000e- 1.0300e- 0.0000 13.4619 13.4619 4.3500e- 0.0000 13.5707 003 004 003 004 003 004 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling • 4.1200e- I 0.1539 1 0.0262 I 5.5000e- I 0.0124 1 3.9000e- I 0.0128 I 3.4000e- I 3.7000e- 3.7700e- •• 0.0000 1 52.7073 1 52.7073 I 2.9300e- I 0.0000 i 52.7805 •I 003 I I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . 1 I I 003 I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , , I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 ' '1 J J J J J J J J J J J I Worker • 1.0300e- I 7.5000e- 1 7.8400e- I 2.0000e- I 2.6300e- I 2.0000e- I 2.6500e- I 7.0000e- I 2.0000e- 7.1000e- • 0.0000 I 2.1051 1 2.1051 I 5.0000e- I 0.0000 1 2.1064 cc) 'I 003 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 . I I 1 005 I I CD 'I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 CO Total 5.1500e- 0.1547 0.0340 5.7000e- 0.0150 4.1000e- 0.0154 4.1000e- 3.9000e- 4.4800e- 0.0000 54.8124 54.8124 2.9800e- 0.0000 54.8870 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 7.9500e- i 0.0794 I 0.1074 i 1.8000e- I I 3.5700e- I 3.5700e- i I 3.5000e- 3.5000e- : 0.0000 i 15.6237 i 15.6237 i 2.2500e- i 0.0000 i 15.6799 9 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 ■ ' I I 003 I 1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 7.9500e- 0.0794 0.1074 1.8000e- 3.5700e- 3.5700e- 3.5000e- 3.5000e- 0.0000 15.6237 15.6237 2.2500e- 0.0000 15.6799 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 ;� ' I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J • J J J Vendor •i 8.9000e- i 0.0332 1 6.6000e- 1 9.0000e- 1 2.2700e- 1 5.0000e- 1 2.3200e- 1 6.6000e- i 5.0000e- ; 7.0000e- : 0.0000 9.0682 1 9.0682 1 5.9000e- i 0.0000 : 9.0831 9 004 I I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 . I 1 004 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I • . I I I I 'l J J J J J J J J • J J J 4. Worker 9 7.7500e- 1 5.6300e- 1 0.0588 1 1.7000e- 1 0.0197 1 1.2000e- 1 0.0199 1 5.2400e- 1 1.2000e- ; 5.3600e- : 0.0000 i 15.7881 1 15.7881 1 4.1000e- 1 0.0000 : 15.7983 cra '' 003 I 003 004 004 003 004 003 004 i CD '� I I I I I I I I • • I I I Total 1 8.6400e- 0.0388 0.0654 2.6000e- 0.0220 1.7000e- 0.0222 5.9000e- 1.7000e- 6.0600e- 0.0000 24.8563 24.8563 1.0000e- 0.0000 24.8814 N 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building -2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr iOff-Road • 3.5700e- I 0.0694 : 0.1200 I 1.8000e- I I 2.6000e- I 2.6000e- 1 I 2.6000e- 2.6000e- .• 0.0000 i 15.6237 I 15.6237 I 2.2500e- I 0.0000 i 15.6799 003 I I I 004 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 . 1 I I 003 Total 3.5700e- 0.0694 0.1200 1.8000e- 2.6000e- 2.6000e- 2.6000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 15.6237 15.6237 2.2500e- 0.0000 15.6799 003 004 004 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 J •J J J J J J J •• J J J 4. Vendor • 8.9000e- I 0.0332 I 6.6000e- I 9.0000e- I 2.2700e- I 5.0000e- I 2.3200e- 1 6.6000e- I 5.0000e- 7.0000e- • 0.0000 9.0682 1 9.0682 I 5.9000e- I 0.0000 i 9.0831 9 004 I I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 . I I 004 I 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , I I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J J J J '1 Worker • 7.7500e- I 5.6300e- 1 0.0588 I 1.7000e- I 0.0197 I 1.2000e- I 0.0199 I 5.2400e- I 1.2000e- 5.3600e- • 0.0000 15.7881 I 15.7881 I 4.1000e- I 0.0000 1 15.7983 co 'I 003 I 003 I 1 004 1 1 004 1 I 003 1 004 003 . 1 I 1 004 1 I CD '1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 1 1 1 CO Total 8.6400e- 0.0388 0.0654 2.6000e- 0.0220 1.7000e- 0.0222 5.9000e- 1.7000e- 6.0600e- 0.0000 24.8563 24.8563 1.0000e- 0.0000 24.8814 W 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 Off-Road •i 0.1284 1 1.2839 1 1.8585 3.1300e- 1 0.0540 1 0.0540 1 1 0.0529 : 0.0529 .• 0.0000 i 270.8250 1 270.8250 0.0383 0.0000 i 271.7829 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I I 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1284 1.2839 1.8585 3.1300e- 0.0540 0.0540 0.0529 0.0529 0.0000 270.8250 270.8250 0.0383 0.0000 271.7829 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I Hauling •I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J 4. •I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I Vendor •I 0.0116 0.4433 1 0.0987 1 1.6000e- 1 0.0393 1 4.3000e- 1 0.0398 1 0.0114 4.1000e- 0.0118 •• 0.0000 I 152.8593 152.8593 8.2900e- 1 0.0000 i 153.0665 •1ei I I I 003 I I 004 I I I 004 . I I I 003 I 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J 4. 9 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Worker •I 0.1258 1 0.0878 1 0.9345 2.9100e- 0.3421 2.1100e- 0.3442 0.0909 1.9400e- 0.0928 • 0.0000 I 263.3840 1 263.3840 6.3800e- 1 0.0000 1 263.5436 co 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 003 I 1 CD •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 CO Total 0.1374 0.5311 1.0332 4.5100e- 0.3814 2.5400e- 0.3840 0.1022 2.3500e- 0.1046 0.0000 416.2433 416.2433 0.0147 0.0000 416.6101 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 Off-Road •i 0.0618 1 1.2030 1 2.0800 1 3.1300e- 1 1 4.5000e- 1 4.5000e- 1 1 4.5000e- : 4.5000e- .• 0.0000 I 270.8247 1 270.8247 0.0383 0.0000 i 271.7825 •I I I I 003 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . 1 I I I 1 9 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0618 1.2030 2.0800 3.1300e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 4.5000e- 0.0000 270.8247 270.8247 0.0383 0.0000 271.7825 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I Hauling �i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 q I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I Vendor 9 0.0116 0.4433 1 0.0987 1 1.6000e- 1 0.0393 1 4.3000e- 1 0.0398 1 0.0114 1 4.1000e- � 0.0118 � 0.0000 152.8593 152.8593 8.2900e- 1 0.0000 i 153.0665 .1 I I I 003 I I 004 I I I 004 . I I 003 I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 .1 J J J J J J J J J J J 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Worker •I 0.1258 0.0878 1 0.9345 2.9100e- 0.3421 2.1100e- 0.3442 0.0909 1.9400e- 0.0928 • 0.0000 263.3840 1 263.3840 6.3800e- 0.0000 1 263.5436 co 91 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 CD I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CO Total 0.1374 0.5311 1.0332 4.5100e- 0.3814 2.5400e- 0.3840 0.1022 2.3500e- 0.1046 0.0000 416.2433 416.2433 0.0147 0.0000 416.6101 (Ti 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 0.0233 i 0.2337 i 0.3572 i 6.0000e- I i 9.1100e- i 9.1100e- I I 8.9100e- 8.9100e- : 0.0000 i 52.0781 I 52.0781 i 7.2500e- i 0.0000 i 52.2593 9 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003II I I I I I I I • I 1 I 003 I I Total 0.0233 0.2337 0.3572 6.0000e- 9.1100e- 9.1100e- 8.9100e- 8.9100e- 0.0000 52.0781 52.0781 7.2500e- 1 0.0000 52.2593 004 003 003 003 003 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 ' 1 I I I I I I I . I I q I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 . • J J J 1. Vendor •i 2.2100e- i 0.0857 I 0.0183 I 3.1000e- I 7.5700e- I 8.0000e- I 7.6500e- I 2.1800e- I 8.0000e- ; 2.2600e- : 0.0000 29.3632 I 29.3632 I 1.5900e- I 0.0000 : 29.4031 9003 I I I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003I I 003 I 1 '9 I I I I I I I I • .• I I I I 'l J J J J J J J J • J J J Worker •i 0.0228 I 0.0153 I 0.1673 1 5.4000e- I 0.0658 1 4.0000e- I 0.0662 I 0.0175 1 3.7000e- ; 0.0178 : 0.0000 1 i 49.0077 I 49.0077 1 1.1200e- I 0.0000 : 49.0358 ' cra :1 I 1 I 004 I I 004 I I I 004 1 I' 003 1 . I I I Total 0.0250 0.1010 0.1856 8.5000e- 0.0734 4.8000e- 0.0738 0.0197 4.5000e- 0.0201 0.0000 78.3710 78.3710 2.7100e- 0.0000 78.4388 0, 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr iOff-Road • 0.0119 I 0.2314 I 0.4000 I 6.0000e- I I 8.6000e- I 8.6000e- I I 8.6000e- : 8.6000e- .• 0.0000 I 52.0780 I 52.0780 I 7.2500e- I 0.0000 i 52.2592 9 I I I 004 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 . 1 I I 003 I 1 9 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0119 0.2314 0.4000 6.0000e- 8.6000e- 8.6000e- 8.6000e- 8.6000e- 0.0000 52.0780 52.0780 7.2500e- 0.0000 52.2592 004 004 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J •J J J J J J J •• J J J 4. Vendor • 2.2100e- I 0.0857 I 0.0183 I 3.1000e- I 7.5700e- I 8.0000e- I 7.6500e- 1 2.1800e- I 8.0000e- 2.2600e- • 0.0000 29.3632 1 29.3632 I 1.5900e- I 0.0000 i 29.4031 •1 003 I I I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 . I I 003 I 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 .1 J J J J J J J J J J J •1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I Worker •1 0.0228 1 0.0153 1 0.1673 1 5.4000e- 1 0.0658 1 4.0000e- 1 0.0662 1 0.0175 1 3.7000e- 0.0178 • 0.0000 I 49.0077 1 49.0077 I 1.1200e- 1 0.0000 1 49.0358 co 9 I 1 I 004 I I 004 I I I 004 1 I I 003 I 1 CD .1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 CO Total 0.0250 0.1010 0.1856 8.5000e- 0.0734 4.8000e- 0.0738 0.0197 4.5000e- 0.0201 0.0000 78.3710 78.3710 2.7100e- 0.0000 78.4388 v 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I Off-Road 4 0.0558 1 0.5504 :1 0.7876 1 1.2300e- I I 1 0.0276 •I 1 0.0276 : I 1 0.0254 0.0254 I I I 0.0000 I 108.1451 1 108.1451 1 0.0350 1 0.0000 i 109.0195 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • J J J T I I I I I I I I • I I I I Paving 92.3600e- I 1 I I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 : I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •• 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 -1 003 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I . I 1 1 1 1 ;I I : I I I : I : . 1 1 1 1 Total 0.0581 0.5504 0.7876 1.2300e- 0.0276 0.0276 0.0254 0.0254 0.0000 108.1451 108.1451 0.0350 0.0000 109.0195 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I : I 1 I 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 ▪I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 q I I I I I I I I .• I 1 I I 1 J •J J J J J J J J J J - I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I Vendor 9 4.0300e- 1 0.1535 1 0.0342 1 5.5000e- 1 0.0136 1 1.5000e- 1 0.0138 1 3.9300e- 1 1.4000e- � 4.0700e- • 0.0000 52.9128 1 52.9128 1 2.8700e- 1 0.0000 i 52.9846 •1 003 I I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . I I 003 I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 'I Worker - 8.7100e- I 6.0800e- 1 0.0647 I 2.0000e- I 0.0237 I 1.5000e- I 0.0238 1 6.2900e- I 1.3000e- 6.4200e- • 0.0000 18.2343 I 18.2343 I 4.4000e- I 0.0000 1 18.2453 cc) -I 003 I 003 I ' I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . I I 004 I 1 I ICD 1 1 CO Total 0.0127 0.1595 0.0989 7.5000e- 0.0373 3.0000e- 0.0376 0.0102 2.7000e- 0.0105 0.0000 71.1471 71.1471 3.3100e- 0.0000 71.2299 Co 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 4 0.0180 1 0.5421 :1 0.9340 1 1.2300e- I I 1 2.0200e- •I 1 2.0200e- : I 1 2.0200e- 2.0200e- I I I 0.0000 1 108.1450 1 108.1450 1 0.0350 1 0.0000 i 109.0194 •I I I 1 003 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 i 003 . I I I I 1 '1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I . I 1 1 1 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I I 1 1 1 I : I I : I I Paving •I 2.3600e- 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 -I 003 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I ' I 1 1 1 1 ;I I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 Total 0.0204 0.5421 0.9340 1.2300e- 2.0200e- 2.0200e- 2.0200e- 2.0200e- 0.0000 108.1450 108.1450 0.0350 0.0000 109.0194 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I : I 1 I 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J - I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I Vendor 9 4.0300e- 1 0.1535 1 0.0342 1 5.5000e- 1 0.0136 1 1.5000e- 1 0.0138 1 3.9300e- 1 1.4000e- � 4.0700e- • 0.0000 52.9128 1 52.9128 1 2.8700e- 1 0.0000 i 52.9846 •1 003 I I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . I I 003 I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 'I Worker • 8.7100e- I 6.0800e- I 0.0647 I 2.0000e- I 0.0237 I 1.5000e- I 0.0238 1 6.2900e- I 1.3000e- 6.4200e- • 0.0000 18.2343 I 18.2343 I 4.4000e- I 0.0000 1 18.2453 cc) -1 003 I 003 I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . I I 1 004 I 1 CD 'I I I I I I I I I , I 1 1 1 1 CO Total 0.0127 0.1595 0.0989 7.5000e- 0.0373 3.0000e- 0.0376 0.0102 2.7000e- 0.0105 0.0000 71.1471 71.1471 3.3100e- 0.0000 71.2299 CO 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.10 Architectural Coatings - East Bldg - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 ' Archit.Coating 1.17894 I 1 1 I : I 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • : I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I : I 1 1 1 1 I I : I I Off-Road •1 0.0460 1 0.3127 0.4347 1 7.1000e- 1 1 0.0170 1 0.0170 1 1 0.0170 : 0.0170 •• 0.0000 1 61.2781 61.2781 1 3.6700e- 1 0.0000 i 61.3697 9 I I 1 004 1 I I I I . 1 1 I 003 1 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.Total 1.2249 0.3127 0.4347 7.1000e- 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 61.2781 61.2781 3.6700e- 0.0000 61.3697 004 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 ' '1 J J J J J J J J J J J I Worker • 5.8100e- I 4.0500e- I 0.0431 I 1.3000e- I 0.0158 I 1.0000e- I 0.0159 I 4.1900e- I 9.0000e- 4.2800e- • 0.0000 I 12.1562 1 12.1562 I 2.9000e- I 0.0000 : 12.1636 co 9 003 I 003 I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 005 003 . I I 1 004 I I CD 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 CO Total 5.8100e- 4.0500e- 0.0431 1.3000e- 0.0158 1.0000e- 0.0159 4.1900e- 9.0000e- 4.2800e- 0.0000 12.1562 12.1562 2.9000e- 0.0000 12.1636 0 003 003 004 004 003 005 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.10 Architectural Coatings - East Bldg - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 : 1 1 1 I : I : I I Archit.Coating •i 1.1789 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I : I 1 1 1 1 I I : I I Off-Road •1 0.0460 1 0.3127 0.4347 1 7.1000e- 1 1 0.0170 1 0.0170 1 1 0.0170 : 0.0170 •• 0.0000 1 61.2780 61.2780 1 3.6700e- 1 0.0000 i 61.3697 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I 1 I 003 I 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 Total 1.2249 0.3127 0.4347 7.1000e- 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 61.2780 61.2780 3.6700e- 0.0000 61.3697 004 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - I 1 I : : : : I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 ' '1 J J J J J J J J J J J I I I I I I I I I 1 I I Worker -1 5.8100e- 1 4.0500e- 1 0.0431 1 1.3000e- 1 0.0158 1 1.0000e- 1 0.0159 1 4.1900e- 1 9.0000e- 4.2800e- • 0.0000 I 12.1562 1 12.1562 1 2.9000e- I 0.0000 : 12.1636 co 9 003 I 003 I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 005 003 . I I 1 004 I I CD 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 CO Total 5.8100e- 4.0500e- 0.0431 1.3000e- 0.0158 1.0000e- 0.0159 4.1900e- 9.0000e- 4.2800e- 0.0000 12.1562 12.1562 2.9000e- 0.0000 12.1636 003 003 004 004 003 005 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I Off-Road 4 0.0496 1 0.4892 :1 0.7000 1 1.0900e- I I 1 0.0245 •I 1 0.0245 : I 1 0.0225 0.0225 I I I 0.0000 I 96.1290 1 96.1290 1 0.0311 1 0.0000 i 96.9062 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I I I J J J T IPaving • 2.3600e- 1 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 : I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 •1003 : I : : : . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1; . 1 Total 0.0519 0.4892 0.7000 1.0900e- 0.0245 0.0245 0.0225 0.0225 0.0000 96.1290 96.1290 0.0311 0.0000 96.9062 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I : I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - Vendor • 3.5800e- I 0.1364 I 0.0304 I 4.9000e- I 0.0121 I 1.3000e- I 0.0122 1 3.4900e- I 1.3000e- 3.6200e- • 0.0000 47.0336 I 47.0336 I 2.5500e- I 0.0000 i 47.0974 •I 003 I I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . I I 003 I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 'I Worker - 7.7400e- I 5.4000e- 1 0.0575 I 1.8000e- I 0.0211 I 1.3000e- I 0.0212 I 5.5900e- I 1.2000e- 5.7100e- • 0.0000 I 16.2083 I 16.2083 I 3.9000e- I 0.0000 1 16.2181 co 9 003 I 003 I ' I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . I I I 004 I II 1 I ICD 1 CO Total 0.0113 0.1418 0.0879 6.7000e- 0.0332 2.6000e- 0.0334 9.0800e- 2.5000e- 9.3300e- 0.0000 63.2419 63.2419 2.9400e- 0.0000 63.3155 N 004 004 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 45 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 4 0.0160 1 0.4819 :1 0.8302 1 1.0900e- I I 1 1.8000e- •I 1 1.8000e- : I 1 1.8000e- 1.8000e- I I I 0.0000 1 96.1288 1 96.1288 1 0.0311 1 0.0000 i 96.9061 •I 1 I 1 003 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 i 003 . I I I I 1 '1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 . I 1 1 1 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I I 1 1 1 I : I I : I I Paving •I 2.3600e- 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 -I 003 1 I I I I I I I : I 1 1 I 1 ;I I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 Total 0.0184 0.4819 0.8302 1.0900e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 1.8000e- 0.0000 96.1288 96.1288 0.0311 0.0000 96.9061 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I : I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 q I •I I I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - Vendor • 3.5800e- I 0.1364 I 0.0304 I 4.9000e- I 0.0121 I 1.3000e- I 0.0122 1 3.4900e- I 1.3000e- 3.6200e- • 0.0000 47.0336 I 47.0336 I 2.5500e- I 0.0000 i 47.0974 •1 003 I I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . I I 003 I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 'I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Worker •1 7.7400e- 1 5.4000e- 1 0.0575 1 1.8000e- 1 0.0211 I 1.3000e- 1 0.0212 1 5.5900e- 1 1.2000e- 5.7100e- • 0.0000 I 16.2083 1 16.2083 1 3.9000e- 1 0.0000 1 16.2181 co -1 003 I 003 I ' I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 . I I 1 004 I 1I 1 I ICD 1 CO Total 0.0113 0.1418 0.0879 6.7000e- 0.0332 2.6000e- 0.0334 9.0800e- 2.5000e- 9.3300e- 0.0000 63.2419 63.2419 2.9400e- 0.0000 63.3155 W 004 004 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 46 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 : 1 1 1 I : I : I I Archit.Coating •i 1.1789 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I : I 1 1 1 1 I I : I I Off-Road •1 0.0460 1 0.3127 0.4347 1 7.1000e- 1 1 0.0170 1 0.0170 1 1 0.0170 : 0.0170 •• 0.0000 1 61.2781 61.2781 1 3.6700e- 1 0.0000 i 61.3697 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I 1 I 003 I 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 Total 1.2249 0.3127 0.4347 7.1000e- 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 61.2781 61.2781 3.6700e- 0.0000 61.3697 004 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - I 1 I : : : : I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 ' '1 J J J J J J J J J J J I I I I I I I I I 1 I I Worker -1 5.8100e- 1 4.0500e- 1 0.0431 1 1.3000e- 1 0.0158 1 1.0000e- 1 0.0159 1 4.1900e- 1 9.0000e- 4.2800e- • 0.0000 I 12.1562 1 12.1562 1 2.9000e- I 0.0000 : 12.1636 co 9 003 I 003 I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 005 003 . I I 1 004 I I CD 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 CO Total 5.8100e- 4.0500e- 0.0431 1.3000e- 0.0158 1.0000e- 0.0159 4.1900e- 9.0000e- 4.2800e- 0.0000 12.1562 12.1562 2.9000e- 0.0000 12.1636 003 003 004 004 003 005 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 47 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 : 1 1 1 I : I : I I Archit.Coating •i 1.1789 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T I I : I 1 1 1 1 I I : I I Off-Road •1 0.0460 1 0.3127 0.4347 1 7.1000e- 1 1 0.0170 1 0.0170 1 1 0.0170 : 0.0170 •• 0.0000 1 61.2780 61.2780 1 3.6700e- 1 0.0000 i 61.3697 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . 1 I 003 I 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 Total 1.2249 0.3127 0.4347 7.1000e- 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0000 61.2780 61.2780 3.6700e- 0.0000 61.3697 004 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 ' '1 J J J J J J J J J J J I I I I I I I I I 1 I I Worker -1 5.8100e- 1 4.0500e- 1 0.0431 1 1.3000e- 1 0.0158 1 1.0000e- 1 0.0159 1 4.1900e- 1 9.0000e- 4.2800e- • 0.0000 I 12.1562 1 12.1562 1 2.9000e- I 0.0000 : 12.1636 co 9 003 I 003 I I 004 I I 004 I I 003 I 005 003 . I I 1 004 I I CD 'I I I I I 1 I I I . I 1 1 1 1 CO Total 5.8100e- 4.0500e- 0.0431 1.3000e- 0.0158 1.0000e- 0.0159 4.1900e- 9.0000e- 4.2800e- 0.0000 12.1562 12.1562 2.9000e- 0.0000 12.1636 01 003 003 004 004 003 005 003 004 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 48 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated i• 0.4302 i 2.9752 i 5.6448 i 0.0255 i 2.0948 1 0.0155 i 2.1103 i 0.5614 i 0.0144 0.5758 : 0.0000 i 2,368.464 1 2,368.464 i 0.1061 i 0.0000 i 2,371.116 '� I I I I I I I I , 1 I 1 I I 7 '� I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 :i } } } } } } } } * I- } } } r Unmitigated . 0.4302 . 2.9752 • 5.6448 . 0.0255 . 2.0948 • 0.0155 . 2.1103 • 0.5614 . 0.0144 . 0.5758 • 0.0000 .2,368.464•2,368.464 . 0.1061 . 0.0000 •2,371.116 1 1 7 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,419.32 ; 1,419.32 1419.32 • 5,197,323 • 5,197,323 City Park ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 T Y General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y Parking Lot ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 • Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 sv Strip Mall + 83.16 , 83.16 83.16 • 304,501 304,501 en Total I 1,502.48 1,502.48 1,502.48 I 5,501,824 , 5,501,824 cri 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 49 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.06 10.06 I 10.06 40.00 20.00 40.00 • 100 • 0 0 City Park ;• 16.60 8.40 T 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 •T 19.00 • 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse • 14.70 I 5.90 • ? 8.70 40.00 20.00 T 40.00 •• 100 •• 0 • 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator:▪ 16.60 8.40 : 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 7 33.00 48.00 T• • • •19.00 • 77 • 19 4 Parking Lot ;▪ 16.60 8.40 -r 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 •T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool ;• 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 33.00 48.00 : 19.00 • 52 •• 39 9 • 4 r • Strip Mall • 10.06 • 10.06 10.06 • 16.60 64.40 • 19.00 • 100 • 0 : 0 • 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 LDT2 I MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303 i 0.181800: 0.111169 i 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365: 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i + City Park • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i -i- i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- i ii ii ii ii i i i i i i i i + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + General Office Building • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i 1 1 1 + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745; 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N v 5� Mitigation Measures Energy Install High Efficiency Lighting CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 50 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity •i 1 1 i 1 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 527.3533 : 527.3533 1 0.0244 i 5.0400e- 1 529.4653 Mitigated :1 I I I I I I I I ■ II I I I 003 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I . 1 I I • .1 1 Electricity •1 i i i 1 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 527.3533 : 527.3533 : 0.0244 : 5.0400e- : 529.4653 Unmitigated :: I I I I I I I I ■ I I I 003 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I . I I I el • J J J NaturalGas •1 0.0209 i 0.1788 : 0.0766 : 1.1400e- : : 0.0145 : 0.0145 : : 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 i 206.9956 : 206.9956 : 3.9700e- : 3.7900e- : 208.2257 Mitigated :1 1 I : 003 : I I I I 1 I : 003 : 003 1 a 1 } } } } } } } } r I. } I. NaturalGas •• 0.0209 • 0.1788 • 0.0766 • 1.1400e- • • 0.0145 • 0.0145 • • 0.0145 • 0.0145 • 0.0000 • 206.9956 • 206.9956 • 3.9700e- • 3.7900e- • 208.2257 Unmitigated 003 003 003 N e0 CD CO 01 co CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 51 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid i 3.83167e•1 0.0207 1 0.1766 1 0.0751 1 1.1300e- 1 1 0.0143 1 0.0143 1 1 0.0143 0.0143 : 0.0000 1 204.4723 1 204.4723 1 3.9200e- 1 3.7500e- i 205.6874 Rise I +006 ;i i I 003 I i I 003 I 003 I I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park i 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 9 I I I I I I I I ■ I I I I 1 1 .I I I I I I I I I ■ I I I I 1 r �I J J .1 .1 J .. I .1 .1 .1 T I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous I 22663.5 .1 1.2000e- 1.0400e- 1 4.4000e- 1 1.00OOe- 1 1 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 1 1 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 1.2094 1 1.2094 I 2.00OOe- 1 2.00OOe- i 1.2166 Ie I ;1 004 I 003 I 004 1 005 I I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 ■ I 005 I 005 1III1 I 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking i 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 ■ IIIIIIIIII1 1with Elevator 1 •1I IIIIIIIIIII 11 . I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office I 19213.4 •1 1.00OOe- 9.4000e- 1 7.9000e- 1 1.00OOe- 1 1 7.00OOe- 7.00OOe- 1 1 7.00OOe- 7.00OOe- 0 0.0000 1 1.0253 1 1.0253 I 2.00OOe- 1 2.00OOe- i 1.0314 IBuilding I ;i 004 I 004 I 004 1 005 I I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 IOq5 005 III1 I I 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot i 0 .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 9 I I I I I I I I ■ I I I I 1 1 .I I I I I I I I I ■ I I I I 1 r �I J J .1 .1 J .. I .i .1 .1 T I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; ■ IIIIIIIIIII 1Swimming Pool I I 1IIIIIIIIII 11 . I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall I 5407.92 .1 3.00OOe- 2.7000e- 1 2.2000e- 1 0.0000 1 1 2.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 1 1 2.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 0 0.0000 1 0.2886 1 0.2886 I 1.00OOe- 1 1.00OOe- i 0.2903 1 •1 005 004 004 I I I I I 005 I 005 I005 005 1 I I 005 I 005 1 1 9 1 I I 1 I I I : ■ I I I I Total 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1500e- 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 206.9956 206.9956 3.9700e- 3.8000e- 208.2257 003 003 003 N CD CO 01 co CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 52 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid i 3.83167e•1 0.0207 1 0.1766 1 0.0751 1 1.1300e- 1 1 0.0143 1 0.0143 1 1 0.0143 0.0143 : 0.0000 1 204.4723 1 204.4723 1 3.9200e- 1 3.7500e- i 205.6874 Rise I +006 ;i i I 003 I i 1 1 I 003 I 003 I t ?I J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 1 I 1 City Park I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I ••I 1 I I I I I I I . . I 1 I I I r �I J J J J J .. I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous I 22663.5 .1 1.2000e- 1.0400e- 1 4.4000e- 1 1.00OOe- 1 1 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 1 1 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 1.2094 1 1.2094 I 2.00OOe- 1 2.00OOe- i 1.2166 e I ;1 004 I 003 I 004 1 005 I I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 . I I I 1 .I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 005 I 005 r �I J J J J J 4 I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 1 .1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 . I 1 1 1 1 I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office I 19213.4 •1 1.00OOe- 9.4000e- 1 7.9000e- 1 1.00OOe- 1 1 7.00OOe- 1 7.00OOe- 1 1 7.00OOe- 7.00OOe- 0 0.0000 1 1.0253 1 1.0253 I 2.00OOe- 1 2.00OOe- i 1.0314 Building I ;i 004 I 004 I 004 1 005 I I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 i 1 • I I I I 1 1 1 I , 1 I 005 005 r 41 j J J J J J 4 I J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot I 0 .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I .•1 I I I I I I I I . . I 1 I I 1 r �I J J J J J .. I J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 1 .1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 . I 1 1 1 1 I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall I 5407.92 .1 3.00OOe- 2.7000e- 1 2.2000e- 1 0.0000 1 1 2.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 1 1 2.00OOe- 2.00OOe- 0 0.0000 1 0.2886 1 0.2886 I 1.00OOe- 1 1.00OOe- i 0.2903 I •1 005 I 004 I 004 I I I 005 I 005 I 005 005 1 I I 005 I 005 1 1 9 1 I I 1 1 1 1 : I 1 I I Total 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1500e- 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 206.9956 206.9956 3.9700e- 3.8000e- 208.2257 003 003 003 N CD CO rn 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 53 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr I Apartments Mid 1 1.02564e•i 291.9232 i 0.0135 1 2.7900e- i 293.0923 Rise i +006 ;i : 003 I i 41 i i City Park 1 0 :i 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 .� 1 1 J Condo/Townhous i 4973.76-,1 1.4157 : 7.0000e- 11.0000e- i 1.4213 e I ;1 1 005 : 005 I i 41 i i Enclosed Parking 1 713728 •i 203.1446 1 9.3900e- I 1.9400e- : 203.9582 with Elevator I :1 003 003 i .i i i General Office i 50885 -,1 14.4831 : 6.7000e- I 1.4000e- i 14.5411 Building i ;1 : 004 : 004 i i .i i Parking Lot 1 28000 -,1 7.9695 : 3.7000e- 18.0000e- : 8.0014 I :1 : 004 : 005 i .i i Recreational i 0 -,1 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool i ;i i .� 1 1 Strip Mall 1 29573 •I 8.4172 : 3.9000e- 18.0000e- i 8.4509 �1 i 004 1 005 1 Total 527.3533 0.0244 5.0400e- 529.4653 003 N to CD cO CD CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 54 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr I Apartments Mid 1 1.02564e•i 291.9232 i 0.0135 1 2.7900e- i 293.0923 Rise i +006 ;i : 003 I i 41 i i City Park 1• 0 :i 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 .� 1 1 J Condo/Townhousl 4973.76•i 1.4157 : 7.0000e- 11.0000e- i 1.4213 e I ;1 1 005 : 005 i i 41 i i Enclosed Parking 1• 713728 •i 203.1446 1 9.3900e- I 1.9400e- : 203.9582 with Elevator 1 :1 003 003 i .i i i General Office i 50885 •i 14.4831 : 6.7000e- I 1.4000e- i 14.5411 Building i ;1 : 004 : 004 i i .i i Parking Lot 1 28000 •i 7.9695 : 3.7000e- 18.0000e- : 8.0014 :1 : 004 : 005 I .1 I Recreational i 0 •i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool I ;i 1 i I 41 1 Strip Mall 1• 29573 •i 8.4172 : 3.9000e- 18.0000e- i 8.4509 �1 : 004 1 005 1 Total 527.3533 0.0244 5.0400e- 529.4653 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.-t Mitigation Measures Area 0) CO CD USE only Natural Gas Hearths N) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 55 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 1.5321 i 0.0768 i 2.7065 i 4.3000e- i i 0.0186 i 0.0186 I i 0.0186 0.0186 : 0.0000 i 57.4636 : 57.4636 i 5.2500e- i 9.7000e- i 57.8849 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 004 I 9 • I I I I I I I • I I I .I• } } } } } } } } + } } } Unmitigated 1.5321 • 0.0768 • 2.7065 • 4.3000e- • • 0.0186 • 0.0186 • • 0.0186 • 0.0186 • 0.0000 • 57.4636 • 57.4636 • 5.2500e- • 9.7000e- • 57.8849 004 003 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural . 0.1179 i 1 1 1 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating .I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • I • I I i J J J Consumer 9 1.3276 1 1 1 1 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products • • • • • • . • • • i '� • • 1 • • • • 1 : • • • i Hearth 9 5.3600e- i 0.0458 : 0.0195 i 2.9000e- : : 3.7000e- : 3.7000e- : i 3.7000e- ; 3.7000e- • 0.0000 • 53.0703 : 53.0703 : 1.0200e- : 9.7000e- : 53.3857 ;� 003 • i •004 003 003 • • • i 003 • 003 . • • 003 • 004 I i _CO •i J J J J J J J J Landscaping 9 0.0812 1 0.0309 i 2.6870 i 1.4000e- i : 0.0149 i 0.0149 : i 0.0149 ; 0.0149 : 0.0000 • 4.3932 i 4.3932 i 4.2400e- i 0.0000 i 4.4992 9 I I I 004 • I I I I • . I I • 003 • 1 CO 9 • I I I I I I I W Total 1.5321 0.0768 2.7065 4.3000e- 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0000 57.4636 57.4636 5.2600e- 9.7000e- 57.8849 004 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 56 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2T Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural • I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1i 0.1179 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J a I J J J T 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Consumer •1 1.3276 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products :: 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 1 I 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 ; J J J J J J J J V I J J J I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Hearth •1 5.3600e- 1 0.0458 1 0.0195 1 2.9000e- 1 3.7000e- 1 3.7000e- 1 1 3.7000e- 3.7000e- . 0.0000 1 53.0703 1 53.0703 1 1.0200e- 1 9.7000e- i 53.3857 9 003 I I 004 : 003 I 003 : 1 003 003 I I I : '1 1 1 : : I I . I 1 I 003 004 .I J J a J a J J a I J J J T I 1 : : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Landscaping •1 0.0812 1 0.0309 1 2.6870 1.4000e- 1 0.0149 1 0.0149 1 1 0.0149 0.0149 : 0.0000 1 4.3932 1 4.3932 1 4.2400e- 1 0.0000 : 4.4992 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 1 I 1 Total 1.5321 0.0768 2.7065 4.3000e- 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0000 57.4636 57.4636 5.2600e- 9.7000e- 57.8849 004 003 004 - - I 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Use Water Efficient Irrigation System -o v CD CD 0) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 57 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •i 133.1252 i 0.8146 i 0.0203 i 159.5371 Unmitigated •• 145.1625 : 0.8951 • 0.0223 : 174.1820 co CD CO CS) Oi CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 58 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 124.2954/ •i 131.3899 i 0.7974 i 0.0199 1 157.2473 Rise I 10.6385 ;i 1 1 1 i J i1 T City Park 1 0/ •i 1.2433 1 6.0000e- I 1.0000e- 1 1.2483 0.393189:: 1 005 1 005 i .l i i J Condo/Townhous i 0/ •1 0.1299 1 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.1304 e i 0.0410754;i 005 i I •l J Enclosed Parking 1 0/0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator ▪l 1 1 J General Office i 0/0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 Building i •▪1 i I •l J Parking Lot 1 0/0 :1 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •l J Recreational i 0/ •1 0.4104 1 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.4120 Swimming Pool i 0.129772;i 1 005 1 i I •l J Strip Mall 12.97986/•1 11.9890 1 0.0976 1 2.4000e- 1 15.1440 i 0 ;i 1 003 1 Total 145.1625 0.8951 0.0223 174.1820 0) to Cr; cO rn CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 59 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 1 22.1088/ •i 120.5404 i 0.7257 i 0.0181 : 144.0746 Rise 19.98957 :: 1 1 1 1 1 J �1 T City Park 1 0/ •i 1.1675 1 5.0000e- I 1.0000e- : 1.1722 0.369204:: : 005 1 005 i .l i i Condo/Townhous i 0/ •1 0.1220 1 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 i 0.1225 e i 0.0385698;i 005 i I •l Enclosed Parking 1 0/0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 with Elevator i •▪11 1 i .l 1 1 i General Office i 0/0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Building i •▪1 1 1 i I •l Parking Lot 1 0/0 .i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •l Recreational 1 0/ •1 0.3853 1 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 i 0.3869 Swimming Pool i 0.121855;i : 005 : i I •l Strip Mall 12.71167/•1 10.9100 1 0.0888 1 2.1800e- 1 13.7810 0 ;i : 003 Total 133.1251 0.8146 0.0203 159.5371 8.0 Waste Detail 80 Mitigation Measures Waste CD CO CD CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 60 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 125.2962 i 7.4048 i 0.0000 i 310.4160 r Unmitigated •• 125.2962 : 7.4048 • 0.0000 : 310.4160 cc) CD CO CS) CO CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 61 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid i 584 •i 118.5467 1 7.0059 i 0.0000 1 293.6945 Rise i ;i I I l 1 1 J City Park 1 0 •1 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 l 1 1 J Condo/Townhous i 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 e i •a i i 1 l 1 1 J Enclosed Parking 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator ▪l 1 1 J General Office i 5.15 •1 1.0454 1 0.0618 1 0.0000 1 2.5899 Building 1 • I I i l 1 1 J Parking Lot 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 l 1 1 J Recreational i 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 Swimming Pool i •▪1 I I i l 1 1 J Strip Mall 1 28.1 .1 5.7041 1 0.3371 1 0.0000 1 14.1315 i •1 1 11 Total 125.2962 7.4048 0.0000 310.4160 B) to CD a) C) (C CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 62 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid i 584 •i 118.5467 : 7.0059 i 0.0000 1293.6945 Rise i •� J J City Park i 0 •: 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 -el J J T Condo/Townhous i 0 •i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 e I •1 1 I 1 -el J J T Enclosed Parking : 0 •i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator iI ; -eI J J T General Office i 5.15 •i 1.0454 : 0.0618 i 0.0000 i 2.5899 Building i ; 7l J J T Parking Lot i 0 :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 f -eI J J T Recreational 1 0 •i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool I ; -eI J J T Strip Mall i 28.1 •: 5.7041 : 0.3371 i 0.0000 i 14.1315 Total 125.2962 7.4048 0.0000 310.4160 9.0 Operational Offroad IEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type cP 0 v 0 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 63 of 63 Date: 3/15/2022 1:26 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation v CO CD CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 5.54 + 1000sgft ; 0.13 T 5,537.00 i 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 328.00 + Space ; 0.00 131,200.00 + 0 Parking Lot 200.00 + Space ; 1.80 80,000.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,375.00 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.58 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 3,572.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 354,053.00 + 785 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 r r + I- Strip Mall 2.44 1000sgft 0.00 2,436.00 0 • • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 627.49 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) v co 15 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data N Project Characteristics - Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Residential Land Use Size" and "Underestimated Parking Land Use Size" CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Construction Phase-Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Off-road Equipment- Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Architectural Coating -See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips- Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Vehicle Emission Factors- Woodstoves - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values." Errgy Use - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. \cater And Wastewater- Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Spjid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates" Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Final Mitigation" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation" Fleet Mix- See SWAPE comment regarding "Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix." CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 3 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Energy Mitigation - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Water Mitigation - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstEquipMitigation • NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 2.00 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 1.00 4 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 8.00 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 1.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 6.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 2.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 8.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 2.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 3.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim . 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim . 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim 4 4- 4 - tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim CD tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change 4 Tier 4 Interim ._w. 4 V, tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier f No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier • ,i No Change Tier 4 Interim r • tblConstEquipMitigation Tier f No Change Tier 4 Interim r • tblConstructionPhase NumDays f 20.00 72.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 72.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 230.00 540.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 230.00 390.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 12.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 24.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 18.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 96.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays • ,i 20.00 108.00 r • tblConstructionPhase NumDays f 10.00 24.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 10.00 12.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • . c- tblConstructionPhase Y NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 o tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 co.- . of tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek f 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 4 4 • tblEnergyUse T24E • 772.17 164.47 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblEnergyUse T24E 845.95 177.65 tblEnergyUse T24E f 3.92 3.50 tblEnergyUse T24E • ,i 3.07 2.74 r • tblEnergyUse T24E f 4.58 4.09 r • tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass f 1,019.20 0.00 • tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass * 1,019.20 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace * 25.90 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace * 0.10 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberWood * 12.95 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberWood * 0.05 0.00 • tblGrading MaterialExported * 0.00 21,180.00 • tblGrading MaterialExported * 0.00 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet • ,i 5,540.00 5,537.00 r • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet f 14,374.80 14,375.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 3,580.00 3,572.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 259,000.00 354,053.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 1,000.00 1,570.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 2,440.00 2,436.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 2.95 0.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 0.08 0.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 6.82 3.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 0.06 0.00 • . c- tblLandUse Y LotAcreage * 0.06 0.00 CD tblLandUse Population * 741.00 785.00 co.- . rn tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 5.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 5.00 . tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 6 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount • 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 3.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours * 6.00 8.00 . c- tblOffRoadEquipment Y UsageHours * 6.00 8.00 CD tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor * 702.44 627.49 co.- . v tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 119.14 584.00 t tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 0.03 0.00 t 4 4 • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate • 0.46 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 20.41 0.00 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate i 2.56 28.10 t • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber ,i 2,648.00 2,880.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber f 1,324.00 1,440.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber f 0.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 67.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 67.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 0.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 13.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber • ,i 13.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 13.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips CC_TL * 8.40 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL * 6.90 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips CW_TL * 16.60 10.06 tblVehicleTrips • Y DV_TP * 11.00 T 0.00 CD co tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 .- . co tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 40.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL * 8.70 10.06 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 8 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 40.00 tblVehicleTrips HS_TL f 5.90 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP ,i 19.20 20.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP f 19.20 20.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HW_TL f 14.70 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips H W_TTP * 40.20 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips H WTTP * 40.20 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP * 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP * 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP * 15.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP ,i 45.00 100.00 r • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR f 6.39 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 22.75 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 5.67 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 2.46 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 9.10 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 42.04 34.08 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 5.86 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 16.74 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 4.84 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips CD Y SU_TR * 1.05 T 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SUco _TR * 13.60 0.00 .- tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 20.43 34.08 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 6.65 5.48 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 0.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR i 11.03 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR ,i 33.82 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR i 44.32 34.08 r • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 16,874,892.64 24,295,400.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 65,154.03 0.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 984,644.96 0.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 211,732.46 0.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 180,736.95 2,979,860.00 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate * 603,492.07 0.00 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate * 110,774.26 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic * 12.95 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic • ,i 0.05 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic i 12.95 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic * 0.05 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass • ,i 999.60 0.00 t • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary v CD CO CO 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Year lb/day lb/day 2022 •i 4.7327 I 59.6883 1 42.3262 I 0.1768 1 6.1991 I 1.6062 I 7.7232 1 1.49061 1.5014 2.9188 � 0.0000 18,123.89 1 18,123.89 I 1.8419 1 0.0000 i 18,169.43 •I I I I I I I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 44 i 44 I I i 54 :I J J J J J J J J • 7 I J J J T 1 : 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 2023 •1 39.1642 50.3281 I 74.0071 I 0.1791 I 6.3900 I 1.7727 I 8.1627 I 1.7179 I 1.6725 3.3903 0.0000 1 17,790.37 117,790.37 2.4052 I 0.0000 i 17,850.50 •1 I I I I I I I 1 . 1 77 1 77 1 I 1 86 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I I 1 I :I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 2024 •I 3.4245 I 23.1138 I 39.8750 I 0.1032 I 4.9834 1 0.6556 1 5.6390 I 1.3333 I 0.6388 1.9721 0.0000 1 10,232.76 110,232.76 I 0.8277 I 0.0000 i 10,253.45 'I I I I I I I I 1 . 1 29 1 29 1 1 61 91 1 1 1 I I 1 1 , . 1 I I I I Maximum 39.1642 59.6883 74.0071 0.1791 6.3900 1.7727 8.1627 1.7179 1.6725 3.3903 0.0000 18,123.89 18,123.89 2.4052 0.0000 18,169.43 11 44 44 54 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2 5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day 2022 •1 2.9559 I 47.2500 I 49.2839 I 0.1768 I 6.1991 I 0.2245 I 6.4236 I 1.4906 I 0.2202 1.7107 : 0.0000 18,123.89 I 18,123.89 I 1.8419 I 0.0000 i 18,169.43 9 I I I I I I I I . I 44 1 44 I I 1 54 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I I •1 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J t 13 '1 I 1 I : I I 1 I 1 I I 1 a1 2023 •I 37.6236 1 49.7057 82.5893 1 0.1791 6.3900 I 0.6753 1 6.8091 1.7179 1 0.6724 2.3166 : 0.0000 1 17,790.37 1 17,790.37 1 2.4052 0.0000 1 17,850.50 CO 9 I I I I I I I I . 77 I 77 I I 1 86 CD 1 I I I I I I I , . 1 I I I '1 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J t •I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 2024 •I 2.6794 1 23.6887 43.0478 1 0.1032 1 4.9834 I 0.1574 I 5.1408 I 1.3333 I 0.1550 1.4883 : 0.0000 1 10,232.76 1 10,232.76 1 0.8277 0.0000 1 10,253.45 OD 9 I I I I I I I I . 1 29 I 29 I I 1 61 'I 1 1 I I I I I I , . 1 1 1 I Maximum 37.6236 49.7057 82.5893 0.1791 6.3900 0.6753 6.8091 1.7179 0.6724 2.3166 0.0000 18,123.89 18,123.89 2.4052 0.0000 18,169.43 44 44 54 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG1 NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 8.59 9.38 -11.98 0.00 0.00 73.80 14.64 0.00 72.52 33.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 0,) CD Co N) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 Area •1 8.9995 1 3.9135 1 23.0563 1 0.0245 1 1 0.4154 1 0.4154 1 1 0.4154 0.4154 : 0.0000 1 4,718.741 1 4,718.741 1 0.1271 I 0.0858 i 4,747.486 9 I I I I I I I I I 8 I 8 1 I 1 8 •I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I Ti �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 1 Energy •1 0.1146 1 0.9798 1 0.4197 1 6.2500e- 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 0.0792 � 1 1,250.266 1 1,250.266 1 0.0240 1 0.0229 i 1,257.696 •1 I I 1 003 I I I I I . 1 4 I 4 I I 1 1 •1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 . I 1 I 1 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 1 Mobile •1 2.7755 1 15.9763 1 34.5375 1 0.1489 1 11.7290 1 0.0849 1 11.8139 1 3.1381 1 0.0791 3.2172 � 1 15,215.46 1 15,215.46 1 0.6462 I : 15,231.61 •1 I I I I I I I I . 1 29 29 1 I •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 i 82 Total 11.8896 20.8696 58.0135 0.1797 11.7290 0.5795 12.3085 3.1381 0.5737 3.7118 0.0000 21,184.47 21,184.47 0.7972 0.1087 21,236.80 10 10 12 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I Area •1 8.9995 1 3.9135 1 23.0563 1 0.0245 1 1 0.4154 1 0.4154 1 1 0.4154 0.4154 : 0.0000 4,718.741 1 4,718.741 1 0.1271 i 0.0858 i 4,747.486 9 I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I 1 8 'I I I I I I I I I . • I I I 1 •1 J J J J J J J JJ J J • -0 Energy •i 0.1146 1 0.9798 1 0.4197 1 6.2500e- I 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 : 0.0792 • 1,250.266 1 1,250.266 1 0.0240 1 0.0229 11,257.696 N I 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 I 1 1 co '1 I I I 003 I I I I I . 4 I 4 I I I 1 ; I I I 1 I I I I , • 1 1 I 1 J J J J i J J J i J • (0 Mobile .1 2.7755 1 15.9763 1 34.5375 1 0.1489 1 11.7290 1 0.0849 1 11.8139 1 3.1381 1 0.0791 3.2172 • 15,215.46 1 15,215.46 1 0.6462 1 i 15,231.61 W .1 I I I I I I I I . 29 1 29 1 I 1 82 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I 1 1 Total 11.8896 20.8696 58.0135 0.1797 11.7290 0.5795 12.3085 3.1381 0.5737 3.7118 0.0000 21,184.47 21,184.47 0.7972 0.1087 21,236.80 10 10 12 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 -Demolition !▪Demolition ;3/5/2022 :3/18/2022 1 6: 12 , , 2 :Site Preparation :Grading 14/4/2022 :4/30/2022 1 61 24 + I , I . i , , 3 -Trenching/Utilities-East Building +Site Preparation I5/2/2022 :5/28/2022 1 61 24: , , 4 :Construction-East Building :Building Construction 15/30/2022 :2/17/2024 1 61 540: + I , I . i , , 5 -Grading :Grading 111/7/2022 :11/26/2022 1 61 18 : , , , 6 -Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation 111/28/2022 :12/10/2022 1 61 12: + I I . i 7 :Construction-West Building :Building Construction 112/12/2022 :3/9/2024 1 61 390 , , , 8 -Paving-East Building :Paying 15/8/2023 :9/9/2023 1 61 108: + I 17/29/2023 I I i , , 9 :Architectural Coatings-East Bldg :Architectural Coating I5/8/2023 1 6] 72, , 10 -Paving-West Building :Paying 18/7/2023 :11/25/2023 1 61 96: + i i 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:A▪ rchitectural Coating .9/11/2023 :12/2/2023 6: 72: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 0) Ares of Paving: 1.8 co co Residential Indoor: 720,137; Residential Outdoor: 240,046; Non-Residential Indoor: 11,960; Non-Residential Outdoor: 3,987; Striped Parking Area: 12,672 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 11 8.00 81: 0.73 Demolition Excavators ; 1 8.00i 158' 0.38 --+ Demolition Generator Sets ; 2; 4.001 84' 0.74 Demolition Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 Demolition +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ Site Preparation Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 --4- Site Preparation +Excavators ; 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 Site Preparation Graders ; 1 8.00i 187' 0.41 Site Preparation Rollers ; 2 8.00i 80' 0.38 _ Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0 8.001 247' 0.40 Site Preparation Scrapers ; 1 8.00i 367' 0.48 _ Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilities-East Building Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 --.- Trenching/Utilities-East Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --.- Trenching/Utilities-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 --.- Trenching/Utilities-East Building :Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 Construction-East Building !Aerial Lifts ; 2; 7.001 63' 0.31 --.- Construction-East Building Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --.- Construction-East Building Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 Construction-East Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-East Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --+ Cow-Rstruction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.00i 97' 0.37 ca ' --.- ' C astruction-East Building +Welders : 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 •-eo ,- - - --' Gi ding crawler Tractors , 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 �_ _ _ Grading :Excavators ; 0; 8.O0' 158' 0.38 * i- Grading :Graders 1: 8.00' 187: 0.41 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • Grading •Rollers 2i 8.00• 80• 0.38 Grading Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0 8.001 247: 0.40 1_ _ Grading Scrapers ; 1; 8.001 367' 0.48 --4- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 8.001 97' 0.37 --4- Trenching/Utilities-West Building Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --4- Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1; 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 --4- Construction-West Building Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --+ Construction-West Building +Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --+ Construction-West Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --.- Construction-West Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --.- Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 --.- Construction-West Building Welders ; 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 --+ Paving-East Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --.- Paving-East Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 Paving-East Building Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --.- Architectural Coatings-East Bldg Air Compressors ; 5; 8.001 78' 0.48 --.- Paving-West Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --.- Paving-West Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 --.- Paving-West Building Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 * s- Architectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 5. 8.00' 78: 0.48 m co Tips and VMT co rn CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 5; 40.00: 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT ' I I I _, i Site Preparation 6; 40.00i 0.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix �HDT_Mix THHDT 1 I I ' J -i - T Trenching/Utilities- 5; 40.00. 0.00i 2,880.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix HHDT Cnc+1:211i1.+inn £ • I I I I j Construction-East j 6; 200.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Q 11il.Jinn £ , I I I I j -1 - T Grading • 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix HHDT 1 I I ' J -i - T Trenching/Utilities- 5; 40.00. 0.00i 1,440.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix HHDT U/.,c+1:21 dlclinn. • I I I I Construction-West i 4; 200.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix .HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q 11il.Jinn , I I I I J Paving-East Building 's 6; 40.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT ' 1 I I ' J Architectural Coatings 5: 40.00i 0.00i 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT C_c+QIr1_ ' ' I I I I Paving-West Building; 6: 40.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT 1 1 I , i r I- r * - -- T + T Architectural Coatings : 5' 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix 'HHDT \A/,,c.+1:2Ic1n 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area v CD CO CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Off-Road •i 1.0548 1 9.1820 1 12.8337 1 0.0211 1 1 0.4731 1 0.4731 1 1 0.4590 : 0.4590 • 12,016.953 1 2,016.953 1 0.3211 1 i 2,024.980 •1 I I I I I I I I . I 4 I 4 I I I I I I I I I I . 1 1 I I 2 Total 1.0548 9.1820 12.8337 0.0211 0.4731 0.4731 0.4590 0.4590 2,016.953 2,016.953 0.3211 2,024.980 4 4 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 •▪I 1 I I I I I I I � I I I 1 •I I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I � I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 -1 J J J J J J J J J J J ,1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1898 1 0.1130 I 1.5212 1 4.2400e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 I 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 . 421.8410 1 421.8410 1 0.0112 I 1422.1203 co •I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 : I I I 1 CD I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 CO Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 Co 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Off-Road •i 0.3685 1 8.2092 1 14.1751 1 0.0211 1 1 0.0307 1 0.0307 1 1 0.0307 : 0.0307 • 0.0000 1 2,016.953 1 2,016.953 1 0.3211 1 i 2,024.980 ,1 I I I I I I I I . I 4 I 4 1 I I 2 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I I Total 0.3685 8.2092 14.1751 0.0211 0.0307 0.0307 0.0307 0.0307 0.0000 2,016.953 2,016.953 0.3211 2,024.980 4 4 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 •▪I 1 I I I I I I I � I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I � I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 -1 J J J J J J J J J J J ,1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1898 1 0.1130 I 1.5212 1 4.2400e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 I 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 . 421.8410 1 421.8410 1 0.0112 I 1422.1203 co •1 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 CD I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 CO Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 CO 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I : I • 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 2.6513 1 0.0000 1 2.6513 0.2863 1 0.0000 ; 0.2863 • 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 •I J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I : I 1 1 1 1 I I I I Off-Road •1 2.5506 1 29.6686 16.4479 1 0.0427 1 1 1.1687 1 1.1687 1 1 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 1 4,137.845:4,137.845 1 1.3383 1 i 4,171.301 •I 1 1 I I I I I I . I 2 1 2 I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.6513 1.1687 3.8199 0.2863 1.0752 1.3615 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 ▪I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J V I I I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •I I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 •I J J J J J J J J v J J J I •I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1898 I 0.1130 I 1.5212 14.2400e- I 0.4471 12.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 • 421.8410 1421.8410 1 0.0112 I 1422.1203 co .1 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 CD I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 CO Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 0 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I • 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 2.6513 1 0.0000 1 2.6513 1 0.2863 1 0.0000 ; 0.2863 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 •I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 •I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 •I J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 0.7319 1 12.1952 1 23.9219 1 0.0427 1 1 0.0700 1 0.0700 1 1 0.0700 : 0.0700 1 0.0000 1 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1 1.3383 1 i 4,171.301 •I I I I I I I I I . I 2 1 2 I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I Total 0.7319 12.1952 23.9219 0.0427 2.6513 0.0700 2.7212 0.2863 0.0700 0.3563 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 ▪I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I I I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •I I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 •I J J J J J J J J J J J •I Worker 9 0.1898 I 0.1130 1 1.5212 I 4.2400e- I 0.4471 I 2.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 I 2.5600e- 0.1211 . 421.8410 1 421.8410 I 0.0112 I 1 422.1203 I 1 . I003 I I 003 I I003 . I I I 1 CD I I I I I I 1 CO Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Trenching/Utilities - East Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I • 1 Fugitive Dust 41 1 1 1 1.1603 1 0.0000 1 1.1603 1 0.1296 1 0.0000 : 0.1296 • 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I Off-Road •1 1.8763 1 20.4507 1 12.0655 1 0.0255 1 1 1.0225 1 1.0225 1 1 0.9407 : 0.9407 • 1 2,473.202 1 2,473.202 1 0.7999 1 i 2,493.199 •I I 1 I I I I I I .; I I I I I I I I 5 I 5 : I 1 6 1.Total 1.8763 20.4507 12.0655 0.0255 1.1603 1.0225 2.1828 0.1296 0.9407 1.0703 2,473.202 2,473.202 0.7999 2,493.199 5 5 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day i Hauling 9 0.6741 I 25.1038 1 4.1100 I 0.0922 I 2.1000 1 0.0642 I 2.1641 I 0.5757 I 0.0614 0.6371 • 9,792.252 19,792.252 I 0.5182 I i 9,805.206 q I I I I I I I I . 9 I 9 I I 1 6 .1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I I I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 •I I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 •1 J J J J J J J J J J J •I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1898 I 0.1130 I 1.5212 14.2400e- I 0.4471 12.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 • 421.8410 1421.8410 1 0.0112 I 1422.1203 co .1 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 CD I I I I I I I I , I I I CO Total 0.8639 25.2168 5.6312 0.0964 2.5471 0.0669 2.6140 0.6943 0.0639 0.7582 10,214.09 10,214.09 0.5293 10,227.32 N 39 39 69 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Trenching/Utilities - East Building -2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 I 1 I I • 1 Fugitive Dust 41 1 1 1 1.1603 1 0.0000 1 1.1603 1 0.1296 1 0.0000 ; 0.1296 • 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 1 i 0.0000 -I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 -I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 0.4782 1 8.4467 1 15.7926 1 0.0255 1 1 0.0418 1 0.0418 1 1 0.0418 0.0418 � 0.0000 1 2,473.202 1 2,473.202 1 0.7999 1 i 2,493.199 -I I I I I I I I I .; I 1 I I I I I I I 5 I 5 I I 1 6 1.Total 0.4782 8.4467 15.7926 0.0255 1.1603 0.0418 1.2021 0.1296 0.0418 0.1714 0.0000 2,473.202 2,473.202 0.7999 2,493.199 5 5 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day i Hauling 9 0.6741 I 25.1038 1 4.1100 I 0.0922 I 2.1000 1 0.0642 I 2.1641 I 0.5757 I 0.0614 0.6371 • 9,792.252 19,792.252 I 0.5182 I i 9,805.206 q I I I I I I I I . 9 I 9 I I 1 6 .1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J T I I I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 -1 J J J J J J J J J J J •I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1898 I 0.1130 I 1.5212 14.2400e- I 0.4471 12.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 • 421.8410 1421.8410 1 0.0112 I 1422.1203 co .1 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 CD I I I I I I I I , I I I CO Total 0.8639 25.2168 5.6312 0.0964 2.5471 0.0669 2.6140 0.6943 0.0639 0.7582 10,214.09 10,214.09 0.5293 10,227.32 W 39 39 69 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.9468 1 9.7976 1 13.8431 1 0.0230 I 1 0.4153 1 0.4153 I 1 0.4055 0.4055 • i 2,198.162 1 2,198.162 1 0.3671 1 i 2,207 341 •1 I I I I I I I I . 1 8 I 8 I I 9 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 0 Total 0.9468 9.7976 13.8431 0.0230 0.4153 0.4153 0.4055 0.4055 2,198.162 2,198.162 0.3671 2,207.341 8 8 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 .▪I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - Vendor 9 0.0964 I 3.6585 1 0.6711 I 0.0107 I 0.2562 I 5.5600e- I 0.2617 I 0.0738 I 5.3100e- 0.0791 • 1,129.230 I 1,129.230 I 0.0695 I i 1,130.966 .1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 3 I 3 I I I 6 '1 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 .1 J J J J J J J J J J J '1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I Worker •1 0.9490 I 0.5648 1 7.6061 I 0.0212 I 2.2355 1 0.0139 I 2.2494 1 0.5929 I 0.0128 0.6057 • 12,109.204 1 2,109.204 I 0.0559 I i 2,110.601 co .1 I I I I I I I I I 8 1 8 I I 1 4 CD '1 1 1 I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 CO Total 1.0454 4.2232 8.2772 0.0319 2.4917 0.0194 2.5112 0.6666 0.0181 0.6847 3,238.435 3,238.435 0.1253 3,241.567 2 2 9 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I 1 1 I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.4687 1 9.3633 1 15.5636 1 0.0230 1 1 0.0963 1 0.0963 1 1 0.0963 0.0963 • 0.0000 i 2,198.162 1 2,198.162 1 0.3671 1 i 2,207.341 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 8 I 8 1 I 9 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 0 Total 0.4687 9.3633 15.5636 0.0230 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 2,198.162 2,198.162 0.3671 2,207.341 8 8 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 .▪1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - Vendor 9 0.0964 I 3.6585 1 0.6711 I 0.0107 I 0.2562 I 5.5600e- I 0.2617 I 0.0738 I 5.3100e- 0.0791 • 1,129.230 I 1,129.230 I 0.0695 I i 1,130.966 9 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 3 I 3 I I i 6 '1 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 .1 J J J J J J J J J J J '1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I Worker •1 0.9490 I 0.5648 1 7.6061 I 0.0212 I 2.2355 1 0.0139 I 2.2494 1 0.5929 I 0.0128 0.6057 • I 2,109.204 1 2,109.204 1 0.0559 I i 2,110.601 co .1 I I I I I I I I I 8 1 8 I I 1 4 CD '1 1 1 I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I 1 CO Total 1.0454 4.2232 8.2772 0.0319 2.4917 0.0194 2.5112 0.6666 0.0181 0.6847 3,238.435 3,238.435 0.1253 3,241.567 01 2 2 9 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I Off-Road •i 0.8839 1 9.1631 1 13.8243 1 0.0230 1 0.3626 1 0.3626 1 1 0.3541 0.3541 • i 2,198.260 1 2,198.260 1 0.3628 1 i 2,207.330 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 8 I 8 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I I 1 Total 0.8839 9.1631 13.8243 0.0230 0.3626 0.3626 0.3541 0.3541 2,198.260 2,198.260 0.3628 2,207.330 8 8 1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 .I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,097.877 1 1,097.877 1 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 3 '1 1 I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 .1 J J J J J J J J J J J .1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker •1 0.8878 I 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 I 2.2355 1 0.0135 I 2.2490 1 0.5929 I 0.0124 0.6053 • 12,029.900 1 2,029.900 1 0.0500 I i 2,031.150 co .1 I I I I I I I I I 4 I 4 I I 1 7 CD '1 1 1 I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I 1 CO Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 6-) 3 3 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I 1 1 I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.4687 1 9.3633 1 15.5636 1 0.0230 1 1 0.0963 1 0.0963 1 1 0.0963 0.0963 • 0.0000 i 2,198.260 1 2,198.260 1 0.3628 1 i 2,207.330 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 8 I 8 1 I I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I I 1 Total 0.4687 9.3633 15.5636 0.0230 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 2,198.260 2,198.260 0.3628 2,207.330 8 8 1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 .I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,097.877 1 1,097.877 1 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 3 '1 1 I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 .1 J J J J J J J J J J J .1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker •1 0.8878 I 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 I 2.2355 1 0.0135 I 2.2490 1 0.5929 I 0.0124 0.6053 • 12,029.900 1 2,029.900 1 0.0500 I i 2,031.150 co .1 I I I I I I I I I 4 I 4 I I 1 7 cp '1 1 1 I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I 1 CO Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 v 3 3 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.8354 1 8.7106 1 13.8183 1 0.0230 I 1 0.3197 1 0.3197 I 1 0.3118 0.3118 • i 2,198.126 1 2,198.126 1 0.3584 1 i 2,207.084 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 3 I 3 I I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 9 Total 0.8354 8.7106 13.8183 0.0230 0.3197 0.3197 0.3118 0.3118 2,198.126 2,198.126 0.3584 2,207.084 3 3 9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0718 1 2.8460 1 0.5625 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,096.475 1 1,096.475 1 0.0559 1 i 1,097.873 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 1 '1 1 I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 .1 J J J J J J J J J J J .1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker •1 0.8353 1 0.4609 1 6.5130 1 0.0197 1 2.2355 I 0.0134 1 2.2489 1 0.5929 1 0.0123 0.6052 • 11,964.071 1 1,964.071 1 0.0457 1 i 1,965.212 co .1 I I I I I I I I 1 6 I 6 I I 1 9 cp '1 1 1 I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I 1 CO Total 0.9071 3.3068 7.0755 0.0301 2.4917 0.0161 2.5078 0.6666 0.0149 0.6816 3,060.547 3,060.547 0.1015 3,063.086 Co 5 5 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.4687 1 9.3633 1 15.5636 1 0.0230 I 1 0.0963 1 0.0963 I 1 0.0963 : 0.0963 • 0.0000 i 2,198.126 1 2,198.126 1 0.3584 1 i 2,207.084 '▪1 I I I I I I I I . I 3 I 3 I I I I I I I I I I •, . I I I I 9 Total 0.4687 9.3633 15.5636 0.0230 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 2,198.126 2,198.126 0.3584 2,207.084 3 3 9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0718 1 2.8460 1 0.5625 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,096.475 1 1,096.475 1 0.0559 1 i 1,097.873 'I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 1 '1 1 I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 '1 J J J J J J J J J J J '1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker •1 0.8353 1 0.4609 1 6.5130 1 0.0197 1 2.2355 1 0.0134 1 2.2489 1 0.5929 1 0.0123 0.6052 • 11,964.071 1 1,964.071 1 0.0457 1 i 1,965.212 co '1 I I I I I I I I 1 6 I 6 I I 1 9 cp '1 1 1 I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I 1 CO Total 0.9071 3.3068 7.0755 0.0301 2.4917 0.0161 2.5078 0.6666 0.0149 0.6816 3,060.547 3,060.547 0.1015 3,063.086 CO 5 5 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 2.6513 1 0.0000 1 2.6513 1 0.2863 1 0.0000 ; 0.2863 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 •I J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 2.5506 1 29.6686 1 16.4479 1 0.0427 1 1 1.1687 1 1.1687 1 1 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 1 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1 1.3383 1 i 4,171.301 '1 1 1 I I I I I I . I 2 1 2 I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.6513 1.1687 3.8199 0.2863 1.0752 1.3615 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I ' Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 ▪I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J T I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I V •1 J J J J J • J J J T'I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1898 0.1130 1 1.5212 4.2400e- 1 0.4471 12.7800e- 1 0.4499 I 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 1421.8410 1 0.0112 I 1 422.1203 (U •1 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I , . I I I 1 C) Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 0 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 2.6513 1 0.0000 1 2.6513 1 0.2863 1 0.0000 ; 0.2863 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 •I J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 0.7319 1 12.1952 1 23.9219 1 0.0427 1 1 0.0700 1 0.0700 1 1 0.0700 : 0.0700 1 0.0000 1 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1 1.3383 1 i 4,171.301 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 2 1 2 I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I Total 0.7319 12.1952 23.9219 0.0427 2.6513 0.0700 2.7212 0.2863 0.0700 0.3563 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 ▪I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J J J J T'I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1898 I 0.1130 I 1.5212 14.2400e- I 0.4471 12.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 1421.8410 1 0.0112 I 1 422.1203 CU .I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I , • 1 I I 1 C) Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 1.1603 1 0.0000 1 1.1603 1 0.1296 1 0.0000 : 0.1296 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I Off-Road •I 1.8763 1 20.4507 1 12.0655 1 0.0255 1 1 1.0225 1 1.0225 1 1 0.9407 : 0.9407 • 1 2,473.202 1 2,473.202 1 0.7999 1 i 2,493.199 'I I 1 I I I I I I .; I I I I I I I I 5 I 5 : I 1 6 1.Total 1.8763 20.4507 12.0655 0.0255 1.1603 1.0225 2.1828 0.1296 0.9407 1.0703 2,473.202 2,473.202 0.7999 2,493.199 5 5 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day i Hauling 9 0.6741 I 25.1038 1 4.1100 I 0.0922 I 2.1000 1 0.0642 I 2.1641 I 0.5757 I 0.0614 0.6371 • 9,792.252 19,792.252 I 0.5182 I i 9,805.206 .I I I I I I I I I . 9 I 9 I I 1 6 .I I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I V '1 J J J T'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I Worker 9 0.1898 0.1130 1 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 1421.8410 1 0.0112 I 1 422.1203 CU .I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I , . 1 I I C) Total 0.8639 25.2168 5.6312 0.0964 2.5471 0.0669 2.6140 0.6943 0.0639 0.7582 10,214.09 10,214.09 0.5293 10,227.32 N 39 39 69 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG TNOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I • 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 1.1603 1 0.0000 1 1.1603 1 0.1296 1 0.0000 ; 0.1296 • 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 1 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 0.4782 1 8.4467 1 15.7926 1 0.0255 1 1 0.0418 1 0.0418 1 1 0.0418 0.0418 � 0.0000 1 2,473.202 1 2,473.202 1 0.7999 1 i 2,493.199 -I I I I I I I I I . 1 6; I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1.Total 0.4782 8.4467 15.7926 0.0255 1.1603 0.0418 1.2021 0.1296 0.0418 0.1714 0.0000 2,473.202 2,473.202 0.7999 2,493.199 5 5 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.6741 I 25.1038 1 4.1100 I 0.0922 I 2.1000 I 0.0642 I 2.1641 I 0.5757 I 0.0614 0.6371 • 9,792.252 1 9,792.252 I 0.5182 I i 9,805.206 9 I I I I I I I I . I 9 1 9 I I 1 6 ; I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J - •1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I I 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 T I I I I I I I I , 1 I I V J J J I J J J T :1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I Worker •1 0.1898 0.1130 1 1.5212 14.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 1 421.8410 1421.8410 1 0.0112 I 1 422.1203 0 ;I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I , . 1 I I CO Total 0.8639 25.2168 5.6312 0.0964 2.5471 0.0669 2.6140 0.6943 0.0639 0.7582 10,214.09 10,214.09 0.5293 10,227.32 W 39 39 69 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.8837 1 8.8171 1 11.9287 1 0.0201 1 1 0.3971 1 0.3971 1 1 0.3888 : 0.3888 • i 1,913.578 1 1,913.578 1 0.2751 1 i 1,920.455 •1 I I I I I I I I . 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I I 3 Total 0.8837 8.8171 11.9287 0.0201 0.3971 0.3971 0.3888 0.3888 1,913.578 1,913.578 0.2751 1,920.455 1 1 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 •▪I 1 I I I I I I I � I I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor • 0.0964 I 3.6585 1 0.6711 I 0.0107 I 0.2562 I 5.5600e- I 0.2617 I 0.0738 I 5.3100e- 0.0791 • 1,129.230 I 1,129.230 I 0.0695 I i 1,130.966 •I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 3 I 3 I I i 6 �I •1 I I I I 1 I I I , • 1 I I V .1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. SD q I 1 I I I I I I I I I n Worker 9 0.9490 1 0.5648 I 7.6061 1 0.0212 1 2.2355 I 0.0139 1 2.2494 I 0.5929 1 0.0128 0.6057 • 2,109.204 1 2,109.204 1 0.0559 I i 2,110.601 (p •▪I I I I I I I I I � 8 1 8 I I 1 4 I I I I I I I I , • 1 I I 1 CO Total 1.0454 4.2232 8.2772 0.0319 2.4917 0.0194 2.5112 0.6666 0.0181 0.6847 3,238.435 3,238.435 0.1253 3,241.567 2 2 9 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I Off-Road •i 0.3964 1 7.7117 1 13.3333 1 0.0201 I 1 0.0288 1 0.0288 I 1 0.0288 0.0288 • 0.0000 i 1,913.578 1 1,913.578 1 0.2751 1 i 1,920.455 9 I I I I I I I I . 1 1 I 1 I I ;1 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 3 Total 0.3964 7.7117 13.3333 0.0201 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 1,913.578 1,913.578 0.2751 1,920.455 1 1 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J 4. Vendor • 0.0964 I 3.6585 1 0.6711 I 0.0107 I 0.2562 I 5.5600e- I 0.2617 I 0.0738 I 5.3100e- 0.0791 • 1,129.230 I 1,129.230 I 0.0695 I i 1,130.966 'I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 3 I 3 I I i 6 �I '1 1 I I I I I I I , I I I V '1 J J J J J J J J • J J J 4. 9 I 1 I I I I I I I I I Worker •1 0.9490 1 0.5648 1 7.6061 1 0.0212 1 2.2355 1 0.0139 1 2.2494 1 0.5929 1 0.0128 0.6057 • I 2,109.204 1 2,109.204 1 0.0559 1 i 2,110.601 (p 'I I 1 I I I I I I . 1 8 1 8 I I 1 4 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 I 1 1 Total 1.0454 4.2232 8.2772 0.0319 2.4917 0.0194 2.5112 0.6666 0.0181 0.6847 3,238.435 3,238.435 0.1253 3,241.567 01 2 2 9 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.8233 1 8.2299 1 11.9133 1 0.0201 I 1 0.3464 1 0.3464 I 1 0.3392 : 0.3392 • i 1,913.676 1 1,913 676 1 0.2707 1 i 1,920.444 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 1 I 1 I I I 4 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 Total 0.8233 8.2299 11.9133 0.0201 0.3464 0.3464 0.3392 0.3392 1,913.676 1,913.676 0.2707 1,920.444 1 1 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I � I 1 1 1 1 q I I I I I I I I , , I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,097.877 1 1,097.877 1 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 3 �I •1 I I I I 1 I I I , • 1 I I V '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. SD .1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I n Worker •1 0.8878 1 0.5086 I 6.9841 1 0.0204 1 2.2355 I 0.0135 1 2.2490 I 0.5929 1 0.0124 0.6053 • I 2,029.900 1 2,029.900 1 0.0500 I i 2,031.150 CD .1 I I I I I I I I � I 4 1 4 1 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 1 I I 1 CO Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 6-) 3 3 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I Off-Road •i 0.3964 1 7.7117 1 13.3333 1 0.0201 1 1 0.0288 1 0.0288 1 1 0.0288 0.0288 • 0.0000 i 1,913.676 1 1,913.676 1 0.2707 1 i 1,920.444 '1 I I I I I I I I 1 0 I 0 I I ;1 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 4 Total 0.3964 7.7117 13.3333 0.0201 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 1,913.676 1,913.676 0.2707 1,920.444 0 0 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,097.877 1 1,097.877 1 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 'I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 3 �I 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J • J J J 4. 9 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker •1 0.8878 1 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 1 2.2355 1 0.0135 1 2.2490 1 0.5929 1 0.0124 0.6053 • I 2,029.900 1 2,029.900 1 0.0500 1 i 2,031.150 (p 'I I I I I I I I I . I 4 1 4 I I 1 7 'I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 v 3 3 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I T I I I Off-Road •i 0.7749 1 7.7896 1 11.9059 1 0.0201 I 1 0.3037 1 0.3037 I 1 0.2971 0.2971 • 11,913.541 11,913.541 1 0.2663 1 11,920.199 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 6 I 6 1 I 1 2 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I I 1 Total 0.7749 7.7896 11.9059 0.0201 0.3037 0.3037 0.2971 0.2971 1,913.541 1,913.541 0.2663 1,920.199 6 6 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I � I 1 I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , , I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0718 1 2.8460 1 0.5625 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,096.475 1 1,096.475 1 0.0559 1 i 1,097.873 'I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 1 �I •1 I I I I 1 I I I , • 1 I I V '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. '1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I n Worker •1 0.8353 1 0.4609 1 6.5130 1 0.0197 1 2.2355 1 0.0134 1 2.2489 1 0.5929 1 0.0123 0.6052 • I 1,964.071 1 1,964.071 1 0.0457 1 i 1,965.212 (p 'I I I I I I I I I � 1 6 1 6 1 1 1 9 '1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 1 I I 1 CO Total 0.9071 3.3068 7.0755 0.0301 2.4917 0.0161 2.5078 0.6666 0.0149 0.6816 3,060.547 3,060.547 0.1015 3,063.086 Co 5 5 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.3964 1 7.7117 1 13.3333 1 0.0201 I 1 0.0288 1 0.0288 I 1 0.0288 0.0288 • 0.0000 i 1,913.541 1 1,913.541 1 0.2663 1 i 1,920.199 '1 I I I I I I I I • 1 6 I 6 I I ;1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 2 Total 0.3964 7.7117 13.3333 0.0201 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 1,913.541 1,913.541 0.2663 1,920.199 6 6 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0718 1 2.8460 1 0.5625 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,096.475 1 1,096.475 1 0.0559 1 i 1,097.873 'I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 1 �I '1 1 I I I I I I I , I I I V '1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J '1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 4. 2 Worker •1 0.8353 1 0.4609 1 6.5130 1 0.0197 1 2.2355 I 0.0134 1 2.2489 1 0.5929 1 0.0123 0.6052 • I 1,964.071 1 1,964.071 1 0.0457 1 i 1,965.212 (0 'I I I I I I I I I . 1 6 1 6 1 1 1 9 '1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 1 I I 1 CO Total 0.9071 3.3068 7.0755 0.0301 2.4917 0.0161 2.5078 0.6666 0.0149 0.6816 3,060.547 3,060.547 0.1015 3,063.086 CO 5 5 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I 1 I I I I I I Off-Road •i 1.0327 1 10.1917 1 14.5842 1 0.0228 I 0.5102 1 0.5102 I 1 0.4694 0.4694 • i 2,207.584 1 2,207 584 1 0.7140 1 i 2,225.433 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I 1 I I 1 6 'I I I I I I •I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J I J J J T I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 Paving 90.0437 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.0764 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 : : ' Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 .▪1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,097.877 1 1,097.877 1 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 3 �I '1 I I I I 1 I I I , • 1 I I V '1 J J J J J J J J J J J .I I 1 I I I I I I I I I co Worker •1 0.1776 I 0.1017 1 1.3968 1 4.0700e- I 0.4471 1 2.7000e- I 0.4498 1 0.1186 I 2.4900e- 0.1211 • 1405.9801 1 405.9801 1 0.0100 I 1 406.2301 (p ;� I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I 1 O Total 0.2504 2.9345 1.9816 0.0145 0.7033 5.4300e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.1000e- 0.1974 1,503.858 1,503.858 0.0659 1,505.506 0 003 003 0 0 5 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I : I I I : : I : I I Off-Road •i 0.3341 1 10.0395 17.2957 1 0.0228 I 1 0.0374 0.0374 1 0.0374 0.0374 • 0.0000 i 2,207.584 2,207 584 1 0.7140 1 i 2,225.433 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I 1 I I 1 6 '1 I I I I I •I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J I J J J T I I I I I I : I • I 1 1 Paving 90.0437 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 : 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.3778 10.0395 17.2957 0.0228 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I ' Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 .▪1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,097.877 1 1,097.877 1 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 3 �I 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J •• J J J 'I I 1 I I I I I I : I I 2 Worker 9 0.1776 1 0.1017 I 1.3968 1 4.0700e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 • 1405.9801 405.9801 1 0.0100 I 1 406.2301 (p ;� I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I 1 O Total 0.2504 2.9345 1.9816 0.0145 0.7033 5.4300e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.1000e- 0.1974 1,503.858 1,503.858 0.0659 1,505.506 003 003 0 0 5 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.10 Architectural Coatings - East Bldg - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Archit.Coating •i 32.7482 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •• 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I I ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 1.2777 1 8.6866 1 12.0741 1 0.0198 1 1 0.4721 1 0.4721 1 1 0.4721 ; 0.4721 • 1 1,876.320 1 1,876.320 1 0.1123 1 1 1,879.126 'I I 1 I I I I I I I 3 1 3 I I I 7 1 1 I I I I I 1 . I I I 1 1 Total 34.0260 8.6866 12.0741 0.0198 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 1,876.320 1,876.320 0.1123 1,879.126 3 3 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ,1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J • J J J 9 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker •1 0.1776 1 0.1017 I 1.3968 1 4.0700e- 1 0.4471 12.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 405.9801 1405.9801 1 0.0100 1406.2301 (p ;� 1 I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I . I I I 1 Total 0.1776 0.1017 1.3968 4.0700e- 0.4471 2.7000e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4900e- 0.1211 405.9801 405.9801 0.0100 406.2301 N 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.10 Architectural Coatings - East Bldg - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 Archit.Coating •i 32.7482 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 •1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 'I I I I I I I I I . 1 1 I I f J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I Off-Road •1 1.2777 1 8.6866 1 12.0741 1 0.0198 1 i 0.4721 1 0.4721 1 1 0.4721 0.4721 • 0.0000 1 1,876.320 1 1,876.320 1 0.1123 1 11,879.126 '1 I 1 I I I I I . 3 I 3 I I I 7 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 . 1 I I 1 Total 34.0260 8.6866 12.0741 0.0198 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.0000 1,876.320 1,876.320 0.1123 1,879.126 3 3 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 �I 1 I I I I I I I � I I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I � I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V '1 J J J T '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I Worker •1 0.1776 0.1017 1 1.3968 4.0700e- 0.4471 2.7000e- 0.4498 1 0.1186 2.4900e- 0.1211 405.9801 1405.9801 1 0.0100 I i 406.2301 (p ;� I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 O Total 0.1776 0.1017 1.3968 4.0700e- 0.4471 2.7000e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4900e- 0.1211 405.9801 405.9801 0.0100 406.2301 0) 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I 1 I I I I I I Off-Road •i 1.0327 1 10.1917 1 14.5842 1 0.0228 I 0.5102 1 0.5102 I 1 0.4694 0.4694 • i 2,207.584 1 2,207 584 1 0.7140 1 i 2,225.433 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I 1 I I 1 6 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J I J J J T I I I I I I I I • I 1 1 1 Paving 90.0491 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.0819 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 : : ' Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 .▪1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,097.877 1 1,097.877 1 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 3 �I '1 I I I I 1 I I I , • 1 I I V '1 J J J J J J J J J J J .I I 1 I I I I I I I I I co Worker 9 0.1776 1 0.1017 I 1.3968 1 4.0700e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 • 1405.9801 1 405.9801 1 0.0100 I 1 406.2301 (p ;I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I 1 O Total 0.2504 2.9345 1.9816 0.0145 0.7033 5.4300e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.1000e- 0.1974 1,503.858 1,503.858 0.0659 1,505.506 003 003 0 0 5 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I : I I I : : I : I I Off-Road •i 0.3341 1 10.0395 17.2957 1 0.0228 I 1 0.0374 0.0374 1 0.0374 0.0374 • 0.0000 i 2,207.584 2,207 584 1 0.7140 1 i 2,225.433 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I 1 I I 1 6 'I I I I I I •I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J I J J J T I I I I I I : I • I 1 1 Paving 90.0491 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 : 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.3832 10.0395 17.2957 0.0228 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I ' Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 .▪1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1,097.877 1 1,097.877 1 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 3 �I 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J •• J J J 'I I 1 I I I I I I : I I 2 Worker 9 0.1776 1 0.1017 I 1.3968 1 4.0700e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 • 1405.9801 405.9801 1 0.0100 I 1 406.2301 (p ;� I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I 1 O Total 0.2504 2.9345 1.9816 0.0145 0.7033 5.4300e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.1000e- 0.1974 1,503.858 1,503.858 0.0659 1,505.506 003 003 0 0 5 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 45 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Archit.Coating •i 32.7482 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •• 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I I ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 1.2777 1 8.6866 1 12.0741 1 0.0198 1 1 0.4721 1 0.4721 1 1 0.4721 ; 0.4721 • 1 1,876.320 1 1,876.320 1 0.1123 1 1 1,879.126 'I I 1 I I I I I I I 3 1 3 I I I 7 1 1 I I I I I 1 . I I I 1 1 Total 34.0260 8.6866 12.0741 0.0198 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 1,876.320 1,876.320 0.1123 1,879.126 3 3 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ,1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J • J J J 9 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker •1 0.1776 1 0.1017 I 1.3968 1 4.0700e- 1 0.4471 12.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 405.9801 1405.9801 1 0.0100 1406.2301 (p ;� 1 I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I . I I I 1 Total 0.1776 0.1017 1.3968 4.0700e- 0.4471 2.7000e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4900e- 0.1211 405.9801 405.9801 0.0100 406.2301 6) 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 46 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Archit.Coating •i 32.7482 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •• 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I I ; J J J J J J J J •• J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 1.2777 1 8.6866 1 12.0741 1 0.0198 1 1 0.4721 1 0.4721 1 1 0.4721 ; 0.4721 • 0.0000 1 1,876.320 1 1,876.320 1 0.1123 1 1 1,879.126 'I I 1 I I I I I I I 3 1 3 I I I 7 1 1 I I I I I 1 . I I I 1 1 Total 34.0260 8.6866 12.0741 0.0198 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.0000 1,876.320 1,876.320 0.1123 1,879.126 3 3 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I I I I I 1 •I I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J • J J J 9 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker •1 0.1776 1 0.1017 I 1.3968 1 4.0700e- 1 0.4471 12.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 405.9801 1405.9801 1 0.0100 1406.2301 (p ;� I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I • 1 I I 1 Total 0.1776 0.1017 1.3968 4.0700e- 0.4471 2.7000e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4900e- 0.1211 405.9801 405.9801 0.0100 406.2301 v 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 47 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated i• 2.7755 i 15.9763 i 34.5375 i 0.1489 i 11.7290 i 0.0849 i 11.8139 i 3.1381 i 0.0791 3.2172 : i 15,215.46 i 15,215.46 i 0.6462 i i 15,231.61 •� 29 29 I i 82 '� I I I I I I I I ; I I I 1 :1 } } } } } } } } * I- } } } r Unmitigated • 2.7755 • 15.9763 • 34.5375 • 0.1489 • 11.7290 • 0.0849 • 11.8139 . 3.1381 • 0.0791 . 3.2172 • • 15,215.46• 15,215.46 • 0.6462 • • 15,231.61 29 29 82 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,419.32 ; 1,419.32 1419.32 • 5,197,323 5,197,323 City Park + 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y f Parking Lot ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 •. Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 w.co Strip Mall + 83.16 , 83.16 83.16 • 304,501 • 304,501 Total I 1,502.48 1,502.48 1,502.48 I 5,501,824 I 5,501,824 1 co 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 48 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.06 10.06 : 10.06 40.00 20.00 40.00 100 • 0 0 City Park ;• 16.60 8.40 T 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 •T 19.00 • 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse • 14.70 I 5.90 ? 8.70 40.00 20.00 T 40.00 •• 100 •• 0 • 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator:▪ 16.60 8.40 : 6.90 I 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 7 33.00 48.00 T• • • •19.00 • 77 • 19 4 Parking Lot ;▪ 16.60 8.40 -r 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 •T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool ;• 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 33.00 48.00 : 19.00 • 52 •• 39 9 • 4 r • Strip Mall • 10.06 • 10.06 10.06 • 16.60 64.40 • 19.00 • 100 • 0 : 0 • 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 LDT2 I MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303 i 0.181800: 0.111169 i 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365: 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i + City Park • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i -i- i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- i ii ii ii ii i i i i i i i i + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + General Office Building • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i 1 1 1 + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745; 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Hittorical Energy Use: N v m 5.4 Mitigation Measures Energy cp Install High Efficiency Lighting CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 49 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day m NaturalGas •i 0.1146 i 0.9798 : 0.4197 1 6.2500e- i I 0.0792 i 0.0792 i i 0.0792 : 0.0792 : i 1,250.266: 1,250.266 i 0.0240 i 0.0229 1 1,257.696 Mitigated .1 I I I 003 I I I I I I. 4 : 4 I I 1 1 . I 1 I NaturalGas •• 0.1146 • 0.9798 • 0.4197 • 6.2500e- • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 1,250.266• 1,250.266• 0.0240 • 0.0229 • 1,257.696 Unmitigated 003 4 4 1 0) CO CD O N O CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 50 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid 1 10497.7 •1 0.1132 0.9674 1 0.4117 16.1800e- 1 I 0.0782 I 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 1 1,235.025 I 0.0237 1 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I '1 I I 1 003 I I I I I : 1 5 1 5 1 I I 7 1 ;1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 I I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 a 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I 1 . I 1 I I 1 I .•1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous i 62.0919 •1 6.7000e- 15.7200e- 1 2.4300e- 1 4.00OOe- I 1 4.6000e- 14.6000e- 1 1 4.6000e- 4.6000e- a 1 7.3049 1 7.3049 11.4000e- 11.3000e- i 7.3483 e I .1 004 I 003 I 003 I 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 • 1 1 I 004 I 004 i 1 .I I I I I 1 1 1 I , . 1 1 1 1 I I : 1 : : : : 1 I 1 1 1 Enclosed Parking i 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I J J J J JI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office 152.6394 •1 5.7000e- 15.1600e- 1 4.3400e- 1 3.00OOe- I 1 3.9000e- 13.9000e- 1 1 3.9000e- 3.9000e- I 1 6.1929 1 6.1929 11.2000e- 11.1000e- I 6.2297 Building I ;: 004 I 003 1 003 I 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 • i 1 I 1 1 • I I I I 1 1 1 1 , . I I 004 1 004 r 41 J J J J J . I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot I 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 I .•1 I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I 1 r 41 J J J J J J I J J J T I : : 1 : 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 Swimming Pool I '1 I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 1 ; I I I I I I I I , . I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall I 14.8162 .1 1.6000e- 11.4500e- 1 1.2200e- 1 1.00OOe- I 1 1.1000e- 11.1000e- 1 1.1000e- 1.1000e- • 1 1.7431 1 1.7431 13.00OOe- 13.00OOe- i 1.7534 1 ' 004 003 003 005 I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 1 �11 I I I I I I I I , • I 005 005 Total 0.1146 0.9798 0.4197 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.266 1,250.266 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.696 003 4 4 1 9) CO CD C) tV CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 51 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid 1 10.4977 •1 0.1132 0.9674 1 0.4117 1 6.1800e- I 1 0.0782 1 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 11,235.025 1 0.0237 I 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I '1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 1 ;1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 1 1 I 1 City Park 1 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 1 I I I I 1 I I , 1 I 1 I I I .I I I I I I I I I , . I I 1 I I r 41 J J J J J I J J J T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous 10.06209199 6.7000e- 15.7200e- 12.4300e- 14.0000e- I 14.6000e- 14.6000e- I 14.6000e- 4.6000e- a 1 7.3049 I 7.3049 1 1.4000e- 11.3000e- i 7.3483 e I ;1 004 1 003 I 003 1 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 . 1 I 1 004 I 004 i 1 .I I I I I 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 : 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I ; 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 . 1 1 I 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 General Office 10.0526394.1 5.7000e- 1 5.1600e- 14.3400e- 13.0000e- I 13.9000e- 13.9000e- I 13.9000e- 3.9000e- a 1 6.1929 I 6.1929 1 1.2000e- 11.1000e- i 6.2297 '1 004 1 003 I 003 1 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 I 1 Building I •I I I I I 1 1 I 1 , I I I 004 i 004 1 t •41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Parking Lot 1 0 •1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 1 I I I I 1 I I . 1 I 1 I I I .I I I I I I I I I , . I I 1 I 1 r 41 J J J J J ., I J J J T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Recreational 1 0 •1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 Swimming Pool I ; I I I I I I I I . 1 I I I 1 1 .1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Strip Mall 10.0148162.1 1.6000e- 11.4500e- 11.2200e- 11.0000e- I 11.1000e- 11.1000e- I 11.1000e- 1.1000e- I 1 1.7431 I 1.7431 1 3.0000e- 13.0000e- i 1.7534 1 '1 004 1 003 I 003 1 005 I I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 1 1 �1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I , I 1 1 005 1 005 Total 0.1146 0.9798 0.4197 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.266 1,250.266 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.696 003 4 4 1 6.0 Area Detail 63 Mitigation Measures Area UEue only Natural Gas Hearths N) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 52 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated i'• 8.9995 i 3.9135 i 23.0563 i 0.0245 i i 0.4154 i 0.4154 I i 0.4154 : 0.4154 : 0.0000 i 4,718.741 i 4,718.741 i 0.1271 i 0.0858 i 4,747.486 � I I I I I I 8 1 8 I I 1 8 91 I I I I I I I . I i a I- } 1- } 1. 1. 1. } * -. I. } } } Unmitigated • 8.9995 • 3.9135 • 23.0563 • 0.0245 • • 0.4154 • 0.4154 • • 0.4154 • 0.4154 • 0.0000 •4,718.741 •4,718.741 • 0.1271 • 0.0858 •4,747.486 8 8 8 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.6460 i 1 1 1 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • i : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating :: I I I I I I I I ' I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • . I 1 I I i J J J Consumer .1 7.2748 i 1 1 i 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 . i i 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Products I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 i `�Hearth 9 0.4290 1 3.6660 1 1.5600 i 0.0234 1: : 0.2964 : 0.2964 1: i 0.2964 0.2964 : 0.0000 i 4,680.000:4,680.000: 0.0897 : 0.0858 :4,707.810 9 1 I 1 1 1 1 I • . : 0 : 0 : I 1 9 DJ '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • I I I 1 i Tandscaping 9 0.6498 1 0.2475 i 21.4963 i 1.1400e- i : 0.1190 i 0.1190 : i 0.1190 0.1190 • i 38.7418 i 38.7418 i 0.0374 i : 39.6759 9 . I 1 1 1 1 : 003 : 1 I I I • O 1 1 1 1 I I I . 1 1 1 1 W Total 8.9995 3.9135 23.0563 0.0245 0.4154 0.4154 0.4154 0.4154 0.0000 4,718.741 4,718.741 0.1271 0.0858 4,747.486 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 53 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural • I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i 0.6460 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 Coating •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J a V I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 Consumer •1 7.2748 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 Products :: 1 1 I I I I 1 I . 1 1 I 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J I 1 : : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Hearth •1 0.4290 1 3.6660 1 1.5600 0.0234 1 0.2964 1 0.2964 1 1 0.2964 0.2964 : 0.0000 1 4,680.000 1 4,680.000 1 0.0897 I 0.0858 i 4,707.810 9 I I I 1 I I I I . 1 0 I 0 I I 1 9 '1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I . I I I 1 1 �I J J a J a J J a V I J J J T I 1 : : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Landscaping •1 0.6498 1 0.2475 1 21.4963 1.1400e- 1 0.1190 1 0.1190 1 1 0.1190 0.1190 � 1 38.7418 1 38.7418 1 0.0374 I i 39.6759 '1 I I I 003 1 I I I I . I I I I '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I Total 8.9995 3.9135 23.0563 0.0245 0.4154 0.4154 0.4154 0.4154 0.0000 4,718.741 4,718.741 0.1271 0.0858 4,747.486 8 8 8 I 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 833 Waste Detail 8.8 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 54 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:30 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Equipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Days/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year r Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation v CO CD 0 N CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 5.54 + 1000sgft ; 0.13 T 5,537.00 i 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 328.00 + Space ; 0.00 131,200.00 + 0 Parking Lot 200.00 + Space ; 1.80 80,000.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,375.00 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.58 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 3,572.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 354,053.00 + 785 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 r r + I- Strip Mall 2.44 1000sgft 0.00 2,436.00 0 • • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 627.49 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib01Whr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) v CO CD la User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data N 6) Project Characteristics - Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Land Use - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Residential Land Use Size" and "Underestimated Parking Land Use Size" CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Construction Phase-Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Off-road Equipment- Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with RIS/MND's model. Architectural Coating -See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips- Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Vehicle Emission Factors- Woodstoves - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values." EPrgy Use - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. cn Ater And Wastewater- Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Stlid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates" Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Final Mitigation" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation" Fleet Mix- See SWAPE comment regarding "Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix." CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 3 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Energy Mitigation - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Water Mitigation - Consistent with the RIS/MND's model. Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstEquipMitigation • NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 2.00 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 1.00 4 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 8.00 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 1.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 6.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 2.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 8.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 2.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 3.00 . 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated i 0.00 4.00 . 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim . 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim . 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim .--cr4 4- 4 v tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim co CD 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim ._cl. 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim 4 4- 4 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier i No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier f No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier • ,i No Change Tier 4 Interim r • tblConstEquipMitigation Tier f No Change Tier 4 Interim r • tblConstructionPhase NumDays f 20.00 72.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 72.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 230.00 540.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 230.00 390.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 12.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 24.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 18.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 20.00 96.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays • ,i 20.00 108.00 r • tblConstructionPhase NumDays f 10.00 24.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDays * 10.00 12.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 ._T. 4 . v tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek f 5.00 6.00 co ._m 4 . o tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek f 5.00 6.00 •-il.). 4 • o tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek f 5.00 6.00 • tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek * 5.00 6.00 4 4 • tblEnergyUse T24E • 772.17 164.47 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblEnergyUse T24E 845.95 177.65 • tblEnergyUse T24E f 3.92 3.50 tblEnergyUse T24E • ,i 3.07 2.74 r • tblEnergyUse T24E f 4.58 4.09 r • tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass f 1,019.20 0.00 • tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass * 1,019.20 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace * 25.90 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace * 0.10 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberWood * 12.95 0.00 • tblFireplaces NumberWood * 0.05 0.00 • tblGrading MaterialExported * 0.00 21,180.00 • tblGrading MaterialExported * 0.00 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet • ,i 5,540.00 5,537.00 r • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet f 14,374.80 14,375.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 3,580.00 3,572.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 259,000.00 354,053.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 1,000.00 1,570.00 • tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet * 2,440.00 2,436.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 2.95 0.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 0.08 0.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 6.82 3.00 • tblLandUse LotAcreage * 0.06 0.00 ._Z 4 . cau Q tblLandUse LotAcreage f 0.06 0.00 ._m 4 . o tblLandUse Population f 741.00 785.00 ._6a • o tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 5.00 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 5.00 . tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 6 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount • 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 3.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours * 6.00 8.00 ._Z 4 . co tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours f 6.00 8.00 ._m 4 . o tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor f 702.44 627.49 ._6a 4 • 1 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 119.14 584.00 t tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 0.03 0.00 t 4 4 • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate • 0.46 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 20.41 0.00 • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate i 2.56 28.10 T • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber ,i 2,648.00 2,880.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber f 1,324.00 1,440.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber f 0.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 67.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 67.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 0.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 13.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber • ,i 13.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 13.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips CC_TL * 8.40 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL * 6.90 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips CW_TL * 16.60 10.06 ._Z 4 . co tblVehicleTrips DV_TP f 11.00 0.00 ._m 4 . o tblVehicleTrips DV_TP f 11.00 0.00 ._6a 4 • Iv tblVehicleTrips DV_TP f 40.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL * 8.70 10.06 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 8 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TL f 5.90 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP ,i 19.20 20.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP f 19.20 20.00 r • tblVehicleTrips HW_TL f 14.70 10.06 • tblVehicleTrips H W_TTP * 40.20 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips H WTTP * 40.20 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP * 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP * 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP * 15.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP ,i 45.00 100.00 r • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR f 6.39 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 22.75 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 5.67 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 2.46 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 9.10 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 42.04 34.08 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 5.86 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 16.74 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 4.84 0.00 ._Z4 cQ tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 1.05 0.00 ._a) 4 o tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 13.60 0.00 ._6a co.) tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 20.43 34.08 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 6.65 5.48 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR f 11.03 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR ,i 33.82 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR i 44.32 34.08 r • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 16,874,892.64 24,295,400.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 65,154.03 0.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 984,644.96 0.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 211,732.46 0.00 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 180,736.95 2,979,860.00 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate * 603,492.07 0.00 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate * 110,774.26 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic * 12.95 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic • ,i 0.05 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic i 12.95 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic * 0.05 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass • ,i 999.60 0.00 t • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary v CO CD 0 CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Year lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 2022 •I 4.7747 1 59.7234 1 39.8050 1 0.1713 I 6.1991 1 1.6063 1 7.7243 1 1.4906 1 1.5015 2.9199 � 0.0000 1 17,560.01 1 17,560.01 1 1.8659 1 0.0000 i 17,606.66 9 I I I I I I I I 1 •I I I I I I I I I . I 85 I 85 I I 54 ; J J J J J J J J I J .1 J Ti 1 I 1 I : I I 1 1 1 1 2023 •I 39.1938 I 50.2362 1 71.2922 I 0.1725 6.3900 I 1.7731 I 8.1631 1 1.7179 1 1.6728 ; 3.3907 .. 0.0000 1 17,120.51 1 17,120.51 1 2.4140 1 0.0000 i 17,180.86 •1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 91 i 91 i 1 1 98 ; J J J J J J J J • 1 J J J T 1 : 1 : 1 : : 1 1 1 1 2024 •I 3.4508 23.0855 I 37.6475 0.0984 1 4.9834 0.6558 5.6392 1 1.3333 1 0.6389 ; 1.9722 .. 0.0000 1 9,745.442 1 9,745.442 1 0.8285 1 0.0000 : 9,766.153 9 I I I I I I I I • 1 3 I 3 1 I 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 I I I I Maximum 39.1938 59.7234 71.2922 0.1725 6.3900 1.7731 8.1631 1.7179 1.6728 3.3907 0.0000 17,560.01 17,560.01 2.4140 0.0000 17,606.66 85 85 54 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2 5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day 2022 .4 2.9770 : 47.2851 : 47.7478 : 0.1713 1 6.1991 : 0.2256 : 6.4247 1 1.4906 : 0.2212 : 1.7118 0.0000 17,560.01 117,560.01 : 1.8659 : 0.0000 17,606.66 •1 1 1 ; I •1 I I I I I I I I • 85 I 85 I I I 54 I I I I I I I I I I I I _A ; J J J J J J J J • J J J I I I I I I I I I I I cQ 2023 •1 37.6532 1 49.6138 1 79.8744 1 0.1725 1 6.3900 1 0.6756 1 6.8094 1 1.7179 1 0.6727 2.3169 0.0000 17,120.51 1 17,120.51 1 2.4140 1 0.0000 1 17,180.86 CD •1 I I I I I I I I • 91 1 91 I I I 98 I I I I I I I I , • 1 I I 1 ._-a �I J J J J J J J J J J J I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1. 0 2024 .1 2.7057 I 23.6604 40.8203 I 0.0984 I 4.9834 I 0.1576 I 5.1410 1 1.3333 I 0.1552 1.4885 . 0.0000 9,745.442 1 9,745.442 I 0.8285 1 0.0000 i 9,766.153 CP •1 I I I I I I I I • 3 1 3 I 1 I 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 I 1 Maximum 37.6532 49.6138 79.8744 0.1725 6.3900 0.6756 6.8094 1.7179 0.6727 2.3169 0.0000 17,560.01 17,560.01 2.4140 0.0000 17,606.66 ll 85 85 54 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 8.61 9.38 -13.24 0.00 0.00 73.76 14.64 0.00 72.49 33.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 0) CO CD O CO 0) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 Area •1 8.9995 1 3.9135 1 23.0563 1 0.0245 1 1 0.4154 1 0.4154 1 1 0.4154 0.4154 : 0.0000 1 4,718.741 1 4,718.741 1 0.1271 I 0.0858 i 4,747.486 9 I I I I I I I I . I 8 I 8 1 I 1 8 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J T I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 1 Energy •1 0.1146 1 0.9798 1 0.4197 1 6.2500e- 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 0.0792 � 1 1,250.266 1 1,250.266 1 0.0240 1 0.0229 i 1,257.696 '1 I I 1 003 I I I I I . 1 4 I 4 I I 1 1 '1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 I 1 1 �I J J J J J J J J • I J J J I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 Mobile •1 2.4144 1 15.9946 1 29.9789 1 0.1375 1 11.7290 1 0.0853 1 11.8143 1 3.1381 1 0.0795 3.2176 � 1 14,064.27 1 14,064.27 1 0.6538 1 i 14,080.62 '1 I I I I I I I I I '1 I I I I I I I I , • I 72 i 72 I I I 32 Total 11.5285 20.8879 53.4549 0.1683 11.7290 0.5800 12.3089 3.1381 0.5741 3.7122 0.0000 20,033.28 20,033.28 0.8049 0.1087 20,085.80 54 54 62 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I 1 1 I : : Area •I 8.9995 1 3.9135 1 23.0563 1 0.0245 1 1 0.4154 1 0.4154 1 1 0.4154 0.4154 : 0.0000 4,718.741 4,718.741 0.1271 i 0.0858 i 4,747.486 9 I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I 1 8 'I I I I I I I I I . . I I I 1 A �I J J J J J J J J J J J N Energy •1 0.1146 1 0.9798 1 0.4197 1 6.2500e- 1 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 : 0.0792 • 1,250.26611,250.2661 0.0240 1 0.0229 11,257.696 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 I 1 1 N •i I I I 003 I I I I I . 4 I 4 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I , • 1 1 I 1 .__a 'I J J J J J J J J J J J o Mobile �i 2.4144 1 15.9946 1 29.9789 1 0.1375 1 11.7290 1 0.0853 1 11.8143 1 3.1381 1 0.0795 3.2176 • 14,064.27 1 14,064.27 1 0.6538 1 114,080.62 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 I 1 J .1 I I I I I I I I ■ 72 I 72 I I I 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 I 1 Total 11.5285 20.8879 53.4549 0.1683 11.7290 0.5800 12.3089 3.1381 0.5741 3.7122 0.0000 20,033.28 20,033.28 0.8049 0.1087 20,085.80 54 54 62 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 -Demolition !Demolition ;3/5/2022 :3/18/2022 1 6: 12 , , 2 :Site Preparation :Grading 14/4/2022 :4/30/2022 1 61 24 + I , I . i , , 3 -Trenching/Utilities-East Building +Site Preparation I5/2/2022 :5/28/2022 1 61 24: , , 4 :Construction-East Building :Building Construction 15/30/2022 :2/17/2024 1 61 540: + I , I . i , , 5 -Grading :Grading 111/7/2022 :11/26/2022 1 61 18 : , , , 6 -Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation 111/28/2022 :12/10/2022 1 61 12: + I I . i 7 :Construction-West Building :Building Construction 112/12/2022 :3/9/2024 1 61 390 , , , 8 -Paving-East Building :Paving ;5/8/2023 :9/9/2023 1 61 108: + I 17/29/2023 I I i , , 9 :Architectural Coatings-East Bldg :Architectural Coating I5/8/2023 1 6] 72, , 10 -Paving-West Building :Paving 18/7/2023 :11/25/2023 1 61 96: + i i 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:Architectural Coating .9/11/2023 :12/2/2023 6: 72: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Aces of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 sv o Ares of Paving: 1.8 0 w Residential Indoor: 720,137; Residential Outdoor: 240,046; Non-Residential Indoor: 11,960; Non-Residential Outdoor: 3,987; Striped Parking Area: 12,672 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 11 8.00 81: 0.73 Demolition Excavators ; 1 8.00i 158' 0.38 --+ Demolition Generator Sets ; 2; 4.001 84' 0.74 Demolition Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.00i 247' 0.40 Demolition +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.00i 97' 0.37 --+ Site Preparation Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 --4- Site Preparation +Excavators ; 0; 8.00i 158' 0.38 Site Preparation Graders ; 1 8.00i 187' 0.41 Site Preparation Rollers ; 2 8.00i 80' 0.38 _ Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00i 247' 0.40 _ Site Preparation Scrapers ; 1 8.00i 367' 0.48 _ Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00i 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilities-East Building Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 --.- Trenching/Utilities-East Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --.- Trenching/Utilities-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 --.- Trenching/Utilities-East Building :Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 Construction-East Building Aerial Lifts ; 2; 7.001 63' 0.31 --.- Construction-East Building Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --.- Construction-East Building Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 Construction-East Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-East Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 13 ,- - - --1- 7 Cstruction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 0; 7.00i 97' 0.37 •-Ga - - --.- Construction-East Building +Welders : 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 •-fa i ,- - - --' i GMftling +Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 �_ _ _ Grading :Excavators ; 0; 8.00i 158' 0.38 * i- Grading :Graders 1: 8.00' 187: 0.41 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • Grading •Rollers 2i 8.00• 80• 0.38 Grading Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0 8.001 247: 0.40 1_ _ Grading Scrapers ; 1; 8.001 367' 0.48 --4- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 8.001 97' 0.37 --.- Trenching/Utilities-West Building Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 --+ e Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --4- Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1; 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ e Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 --4- Construction-West Building Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --+ Construction-West Building +Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --+ Construction-West Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --.- Construction-West Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --.- Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 --.- Construction-West Building Welders ; 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 --+ Paving-East Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --.- Paving-East Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 Paving-East Building Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --.- Architectural Coatings-East Bldg Air Compressors ; 5; 8.001 78' 0.48 --.- Paving-West Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --.- Paving-West Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 --.- Paving-West Building Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 * s- Architectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 5. 8.00' 78: 0.48 17 co CD Tres and VMT 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 5; 40.00: 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT ' I I I _, i Site Preparation 6; 40.00i O.001 0.00� 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;-LD_Mix �HDT_Mix THHDT 1 I - I ' J -i T Trenching/Utilities- 5; 40.00. 0.00i 2,880.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix HHDT Cnc+1:211i1.+inn £ • I I I I j Construction-East j 6; 200.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Q 11;I.J;..., £ , I I I I j -1 - T Grading • 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix HHDT 1 I - I ' J -i T Trenching/Utilities- 5; 40.00. 0.00i 1,440.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix HHDT U/.,c+1:21 dlclin., • I I I I Construction-West i 4; 200.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;-LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q 11;I.J;..., , I I I I J Paving-East Building i6; 40.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT ' 1 I I ' J Architectural Coatings 5: 40.00i 0.00i 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;-LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT C_c+QIr1_ ' ' I I I I Paving-West Building; 6: 40.00i 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;-LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT 1 1 I , i r I- r * - -- T + T Architectural Coatings : 5' 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix 'HHDT \Nnc+1:2I.11-1 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area v CO CD 0 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Off-Road •i 1.0548 1 9.1820 1 12.8337 1 0.0211 1 1 0.4731 1 0.4731 1 1 0.4590 : 0.4590 • 12,016.953 1 2,016.953 1 0.3211 1 12,024.980 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 4 I 4 1 I I I I I I I I I . 1 1 I I 2 Total 1.0548 9.1820 12.8337 0.0211 0.4731 0.4731 0.4590 0.4590 2,016.953 2,016.953 0.3211 2,024.980 4 4 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 .I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 �-I 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J J J J 'I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I co Worker 9 0.1907 1 0.1188 I 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 I 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 I 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 378.4584 1 378.4584 1 9.8100e- I : 378.7036 (D .1 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I , . I I I 1 -F. Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 N 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Off-Road •i 0.3685 1 8.2092 1 14.1751 1 0.0211 1 1 0.0307 1 0.0307 1 1 0.0307 : 0.0307 • 0.0000 12,016.953 1 2,016.953 1 0.3211 1 i 2,024.980 'I I I I I I I I I I 4 I 4 I I I 2 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 Total 0.3685 8.2092 14.1751 0.0211 0.0307 0.0307 0.0307 0.0307 0.0000 2,016.953 2,016.953 0.3211 2,024.980 4 4 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 .I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 �-I 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J • J J J 9 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker ; 0.1907 1 0.1188 1 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 1 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 378.4584 1 378.4584 1 9.8100e- 1 378.7036 CD .1 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I , . 1 1 1 1 Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 0) 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 2.6513 1 0.0000 1 2.6513 1 0.2863 1 0.0000 ; 0.2863 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J .. I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 2.5506 1 29.6686 1 16.4479 1 0.0427 1 1 1.1687 1 1.1687 1 1 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 1 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1 1.3383 1 i 4,171.301 'I I 1 I I I I I I . I 2 I 2 I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.6513 1.1687 3.8199 0.2863 1.0752 1.3615 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 .I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I I I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J • J J J 9 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker ; 0.1907 1 0.1188 1 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 1 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 378.4584 1 378.4584 1 9.8100e- 1 378.7036 (D •1 1 I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I , . I I I 1 Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 2.6513 1 0.0000 1 2.6513 1 0.2863 1 0.0000 ; 0.2863 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 MI J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 0.7319 1 12.1952 1 23.9219 1 0.0427 1 1 0.0700 1 0.0700 1 1 0.0700 0.0700 0.0000 1 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1 1.3383 1 i 4,171.301 'I I I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I , • I I I I 1 Total 0.7319 12.1952 23.9219 0.0427 2.6513 0.0700 2.7212 0.2863 0.0700 0.3563 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. I I I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J • J J J 9 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker ; 0.1907 1 0.1188 1 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 1 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 1 378.4584 1 9.8100e- 1 378.7036 (U •1 1 I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I , • 1 1 1 1 Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 01 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Trenching/Utilities - East Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 1.1603 1 0.0000 1 1.1603 1 0.1296 1 0.0000 : 0.1296 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I Off-Road •1 1.8763 1 20.4507 1 12.0655 1 0.0255 1 1 1.0225 1 1.0225 1 1 0.9407 : 0.9407 • 1 2,473.202 1 2,473.202 1 0.7999 1 i 2,493.199 'I I 1 I I I I I I .; I I I I I I I I 5 I 5 : I 1 6 1.Total 1.8763 20.4507 12.0655 0.0255 1.1603 1.0225 2.1828 0.1296 0.9407 1.0703 2,473.202 2,473.202 0.7999 2,493.199 5 5 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day i Hauling 9 0.7049 I 25.1471 1 4.6850 I 0.0897 I 2.1000 1 0.0651 I 2.1651 I 0.5757 I 0.0623 0.6380 • 9,532.877 19,532.877 I 0.5629 I i 9,546.950 .I I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I 1 8 .1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J •J J J J J J J - J J J - I I I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V •1 J J J J J • J J J T'I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1907 0.1188 1 1.2457 3.8000e- I 0.4471 12.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 1378.4584 1 9.8100e- 1378.7036 CD .I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . 1 1 1 1 -F. Total 0.8956 25.2659 5.9307 0.0935 2.5471 0.0679 2.6149 0.6943 0.0648 0.7591 9,911.336 9,911.336 0.5727 9,925.654 6-) 2 2 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Trenching/Utilities - East Building -2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 1.1603 1 0.0000 1 1.1603 1 0.1296 1 0.0000 ; 0.1296 • 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 1 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 0.4782 1 8.4467 1 15.7926 1 0.0255 1 1 0.0418 1 0.0418 1 1 0.0418 0.0418 � 0.0000 1 2,473.202 1 2,473.202 1 0.7999 1 i 2,493.199 'I I I I I I I I I .; I 1 I I I I I I I 5 I 5 I I 1 6 1.Total 0.4782 8.4467 15.7926 0.0255 1.1603 0.0418 1.2021 0.1296 0.0418 0.1714 0.0000 2,473.202 2,473.202 0.7999 2,493.199 5 5 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day i Hauling 9 0.7049 I 25.1471 1 4.6850 I 0.0897 I 2.1000 1 0.0651 I 2.1651 I 0.5757 I 0.0623 0.6380 • 9,532.877 19,532.877 I 0.5629 I i 9,546.950 .I I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I 1 8 .1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J •J J J J J J J - J J J - I I I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V '1 J J J J J • J J J T'I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1907 0.1188 1 1.2457 3.8000e- I 0.4471 12.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 1378.4584 1 9.8100e- 1378.7036 CD .I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I • 1 1 1 1 -F. Total 0.8956 25.2659 5.9307 0.0935 2.5471 0.0679 2.6149 0.6943 0.0648 0.7591 9,911.336 9,911.336 0.5727 9,925.654 v 2 2 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I 1 I I Off-Road •i 0.9468 1 9.7976 1 13.8431 1 0.0230 I 1 0.4153 1 0.4153 I 1 0.4055 0.4055 • i 2,198.162 1 2,198.162 1 0.3671 1 i 2,207.341 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 8 I 8 I I 9 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 0 Total 0.9468 9.7976 13.8431 0.0230 0.4153 0.4153 0.4055 0.4055 2,198.162 2,198.162 0.3671 2,207.341 8 8 0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I 1 I I Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.1024 1 3.6155 1 0.7882 1 0.0103 1 0.2562 1 5.7200e- 1 0.2619 1 0.0738 1 5.4700e- 0.0792 • 1,085.025 1 1,085.025 1 0.0771 1 i 1,086.952 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 0 I 0 I I I 4 �I •1 I I I I 1 I I I , • 1 I I V '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. .1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I n Worker •1 0.9535 I 0.5937 1 6.2284 I 0.0190 I 2.2355 1 0.0139 I 2.2494 1 0.5929 I 0.0128 0.6057 • I 1,892.292 1 1,892.292 1 0.0490 I i 1,893.518 0 q I 1 I I I I 1 I . 1 0 1 0 I 1 1 0 '1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I , . 1 1 I 1 1 -F. Total 1.0559 4.2092 7.0166 0.0293 2.4917 0.0196 2.5113 0.6666 0.0183 0.6849 2,977.317 2,977.317 0.1261 2,980.470 Co 0 0 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •i 0.4687 1 9.3633 1 15.5636 1 0.0230 1 1 0.0963 1 0.0963 1 1 0.0963 0.0963 • 0.0000 i 2,198.162 1 2,198.162 1 0.3671 1 i 2,207.341 9 I I I I I I I I 1 8 I 8 I I 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 0 Total 0.4687 9.3633 15.5636 0.0230 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 2,198.162 2,198.162 0.3671 2,207.341 8 8 0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.1024 1 3.6155 1 0.7882 1 0.0103 1 0.2562 1 5.7200e- 1 0.2619 1 0.0738 1 5.4700e- 0.0792 • 1,085.025 1 1,085.025 1 0.0771 1 i 1,086.952 'I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 0 I 0 I I I 4 �I '1 1 I I I I I I I , I I I V '1 J J J J J J J J • J J J 4. 9 I 1 I I I I I I I I I Worker •1 0.9535 1 0.5937 1 6.2284 1 0.0190 1 2.2355 1 0.0139 1 2.2494 1 0.5929 1 0.0128 0.6057 • I 1,892.292 1 1,892.292 1 0.0490 1 i 1,893.518 (p 'I I 1 I I I I 1 I . 1 0 1 0 I I 1 0 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 I 1 1 Total 1.0559 4.2092 7.0166 0.0293 2.4917 0.0196 2.5113 0.6666 0.0183 0.6849 2,977.317 2,977.317 0.1261 2,980.470 CO 0 0 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.8839 1 9.1631 1 13.8243 1 0.0230 I 1 0.3626 1 0.3626 I 1 0.3541 0.3541 • i 2,198.260 1 2,198.260 1 0.3628 1 i 2,207.330 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 8 I 8 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I Total 0.8839 9.1631 13.8243 0.0230 0.3626 0.3626 0.3541 0.3541 2,198.260 2,198.260 0.3628 2,207.330 8 8 1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I i 0.0000 ; 1 I I I I I I I � � I I I I I I I I I I I I , , 1 I I 1 .1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - Vendor 9 0.0772 I 2.7944 I 0.6705 I 0.0100 I 0.2562 I2.8300e- I 0.2590 I 0.0738 I2.7100e- 0.0765 • 1,055.593 11,055.593 I 0.0618 I i 1,057.137 'I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 4 I 4 I I I 7 �I •1 I I I I 1 I I I , • 1 I I V '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. .1 I I I I I I I I I I I n Worker •1 0.8947 I 0.5344 I 5.7101 1 0.0183 I 2.2355 I 0.0135 I 2.2490 I 0.5929 I 0.0124 0.6053 • I 1,821.266 11,821.266 1 0.0440 I i 1,822.365 (p 'I I I I I I I I I � 1 8 I 8 1 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 1 I I C) Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 0 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I 1 1 I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.4687 1 9.3633 1 15.5636 1 0.0230 1 1 0.0963 1 0.0963 1 1 0.0963 0.0963 • 0.0000 i 2,198.260 1 2,198.260 1 0.3628 1 i 2,207.330 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 8 I 8 1 I I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I I 1 Total 0.4687 9.3633 15.5636 0.0230 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 2,198.260 2,198.260 0.3628 2,207.330 8 8 1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I � I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I , , 1 I I 1 .1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - Vendor 9 0.0772 I 2.7944 I 0.6705 I 0.0100 I 0.2562 I2.8300e- I 0.2590 I 0.0738 I2.7100e- 0.0765 • 1,055.593 11,055.593 I 0.0618 I i 1,057.137 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 4 I 4 I I I 7 �I '1 I I I I I I I I , I I I V '1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J '1 I I I I I I I I I I I 4. 2 Worker •1 0.8947 I 0.5344 I 5.7101 1 0.0183 I 2.2355 I 0.0135 I 2.2490 I 0.5929 I 0.0124 0.6053 • I 1,821.266 11,821.266 1 0.0440 I i 1,822.365 (p 'I I I I I I I I I � 1 8 I 8 1 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 1 I I C) Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.8354 1 8.7106 I 13.8183 1 0.0230 I 1 0.3197 1 0.3197 I 1 0.3118 0.3118 • i 2,198.126 1 2,198.126 1 0.3584 1 i 2,207.084 •1 I I I I I I I I . I 3 I 3 I I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 9 Total 0.8354 8.7106 13.8183 0.0230 0.3197 0.3197 0.3118 0.3118 2,198.126 2,198.126 0.3584 2,207.084 3 3 9 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 •▪I 1 I I I I I I I • I I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0761 I 2.8087 1 0.6463 I 9.9900e- I 0.2562 I 2.8200e- I 0.2590 I 0.0738 I 2.6900e- 0.0765 • 1,054.662 1 1,054.662 I 0.0618 I i 1,056.206 •I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . 3 I 3 I I I 3 �I •1 I I I I 1 I 1 I , • 1 I I V •1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. •1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I co Worker 9 0.8442 1 0.4839 I 5.3154 1 0.0177 1 2.2355 I 0.0134 1 2.2489 I 0.5929 1 0.0123 0.6052 • 1,762.225 11,762.225 1 0.0401 1 i 1,763.228 (p ▪I I I I I I I I I � 0 1 0 1 I I 6 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I 1 C) Total 0.9203 3.2927 5.9617 0.0277 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6816 2,816.887 2,816.887 0.1019 2,819.434 N 2 2 9 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 0.4687 I 9.3633 I 15.5636 I 0.0230 I 1 0.0963 1 0.0963 I I 0.0963 0.0963 • 0.0000 i 2,198.126 I 2,198.126 I 0.3584 I i 2,207.084 9 I I I I I I I I I 3 I 3 I I 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 9 Total 0.4687 9.3633 15.5636 0.0230 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 2,198.126 2,198.126 0.3584 2,207.084 3 3 9 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 .I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0761 I 2.8087 1 0.6463 I 9.9900e- I 0.2562 I 2.8200e- I 0.2590 I 0.0738 I 2.6900e- 0.0765 • 1,054.662 1 1,054.662 I 0.0618 I i 1,056.206 'I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . 3 I 3 I I I 3 �I 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J • J J J 4. Worker 9i 0.8442 I 0.4839 1 5.3154 I 0.0177 I 2.2355 I 0.0134 I 2.2489 I 0.5929 I 0.0123 0.6052 • 1,762.225 I 1,762.225 I 0.0401 I i 1,763.228 (p .I I I I I I I I I . 0 I 0 I I I 6 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I 1 Total 0.9203 3.2927 5.9617 0.0277 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6816 2,816.887 2,816.887 0.1019 2,819.434 cri w 2 2 9 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 2.6513 1 0.0000 1 2.6513 1 0.2863 1 0.0000 ; 0.2863 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 •I J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 2.5506 1 29.6686 1 16.4479 1 0.0427 1 1 1.1687 1 1.1687 1 1 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 1 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1 1.3383 1 i 4,171.301 '1 1 1 I I I I I I . I 2 1 2 I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.6513 1.1687 3.8199 0.2863 1.0752 1.3615 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I ' Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 ▪I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 q I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J T I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I V '1 J J J J J J J J • J J J 9 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker ; 0.1907 1 0.1188 I 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 12.7800e- 1 0.4499 I 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 378.4584 1378.4584 1 9.8100e- 1378.7036 CD •1 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I , . I I I C) Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 2.6513 1 0.0000 1 2.6513 1 0.2863 1 0.0000 ; 0.2863 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 MI J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 0.7319 1 12.1952 1 23.9219 1 0.0427 1 1 0.0700 1 0.0700 1 1 0.0700 0.0700 0.0000 1 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1 1.3383 1 i 4,171.301 'I I I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 8 I I I I I I I I , • I I I I 1 Total 0.7319 12.1952 23.9219 0.0427 2.6513 0.0700 2.7212 0.2863 0.0700 0.3563 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 •I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J • J J J T'I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1907 1 0.1188 1 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 1 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 1 378.4584 1 9.8100e- 1 378.7036 (U •1 1 I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I , • 1 1 1 1 Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 cri 01 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 1.1603 1 0.0000 1 1.1603 1 0.1296 1 0.0000 : 0.1296 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I Off-Road •1 1.8763 1 20.4507 1 12.0655 1 0.0255 1 1 1.0225 1 1.0225 1 1 0.9407 : 0.9407 • 1 2,473.202 1 2,473.202 1 0.7999 1 i 2,493.199 'I I 1 I I I I I I .; I I I I I I I I 5 I 5 : I 1 6 1.Total 1.8763 20.4507 12.0655 0.0255 1.1603 1.0225 2.1828 0.1296 0.9407 1.0703 2,473.202 2,473.202 0.7999 2,493.199 5 5 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day i Hauling 9 0.7049 I 25.1471 1 4.6850 I 0.0897 I 2.1000 1 0.0651 I 2.1651 I 0.5757 I 0.0623 0.6380 • 9,532.877 19,532.877 I 0.5629 I i 9,546.950 .I I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I 1 8 .1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J •J J J J J J J - J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V •I J J J J J J J J • J J J T 9 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Worker ; 0.1907 1 0.1188 I 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 I 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 378.4584 1378.4584 1 9.8100e- 1378.7036 CD .I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . 1 1 1 1 C) Total 0.8956 25.2659 5.9307 0.0935 2.5471 0.0679 2.6149 0.6943 0.0648 0.7591 9,911.336 9,911.336 0.5727 9,925.654 6-) 2 2 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG TNOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I • 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 1.1603 1 0.0000 1 1.1603 1 0.1296 1 0.0000 ; 0.1296 • 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 1 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 0.4782 1 8.4467 1 15.7926 1 0.0255 1 1 0.0418 1 0.0418 1 1 0.0418 0.0418 � 0.0000 1 2,473.202 1 2,473.202 1 0.7999 1 i 2,493.199 -I I I I I I I I I . 1 6; I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1.Total 0.4782 8.4467 15.7926 0.0255 1.1603 0.0418 1.2021 0.1296 0.0418 0.1714 0.0000 2,473.202 2,473.202 0.7999 2,493.199 5 5 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.7049 1 25.1471 1 4.6850 I 0.0897 I 2.1000 I 0.0651 I 2.1651 I 0.5757 I 0.0623 0.6380 • 9,532.877 1 9,532.877 I 0.5629 I i 9,546.950 9 I I I I I I I I . I 8 I 8 I I 1 8 ; I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J - •1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I I 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 T I I I I I I I I 1 I I V •I J J J J J J J J • I J J J T •I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I Worker •1 0.1907 I 0.1188 I 1.2457 13.8000e- I 0.4471 12.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 1 378.4584 1378.4584 1 9.8100e- 1378.7036 0p ;� I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . 1 1 1 1 C) Total 0.8956 25.2659 5.9307 0.0935 2.5471 0.0679 2.6149 0.6943 0.0648 0.7591 9,911.336 9,911.336 0.5727 9,925.654 v 2 2 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I Off-Road •i 0.8837 1 8.8171 11.9287 1 0.0201 1 1 0.3971 1 0.3971 1 1 0.3888 : 0.3888 • i 1,913.578 1 1,913.578 1 0.2751 1 i 1,920.455 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I I 3 Total 0.8837 8.8171 11.9287 0.0201 0.3971 0.3971 0.3888 0.3888 1,913.578 1,913.578 0.2751 1,920.455 1 1 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 Hauling •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I � I 1 I I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I , , I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.1024 1 3.6155 1 0.7882 1 0.0103 1 0.2562 1 5.7200e- 1 0.2619 1 0.0738 1 5.4700e- 0.0792 • 1,085.025 1 1,085.025 1 0.0771 1 i 1,086.952 'I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 0 I 0 I I I 4 �I •1 I I I I 1 I I I , • 1 I I V •1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. SD 'I I 1 I I I I I I I : I n Worker •I 0.9535 1 0.5937 I 6.2284 1 0.0190 1 2.2355 I 0.0139 1 2.2494 I 0.5929 1 0.0128 0.6057 • I 1,892.292 1 1,892.292 0.0490 I i 1,893.518 0 'I I I I I I I I I 1 0 1 0 I 1 1 0 'I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I , . 1 1 I 1 1 C) Total 1.0559 4.2092 7.0166 0.0293 2.4917 0.0196 2.5113 0.6666 0.0183 0.6849 2,977.317 2,977.317 0.1261 2,980.470 co 0 0 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2022 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I Off-Road •i 0.3964 1 7.7117 1 13.3333 1 0.0201 I 1 0.0288 1 0.0288 I 1 0.0288 0.0288 • 0.0000 i 1,913.578 1 1,913.578 1 0.2751 1 i 1,920.455 9 I I I I I I I I . 1 1 I 1 I I ;1 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 3 Total 0.3964 7.7117 13.3333 0.0201 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 1,913.578 1,913.578 0.2751 1,920.455 1 1 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J 4. I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.1024 1 3.6155 1 0.7882 1 0.0103 1 0.2562 1 5.7200e- 1 0.2619 1 0.0738 1 5.4700e- 0.0792 • 1,085.025 1 1,085.025 1 0.0771 1 i 1,086.952 'I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 0 I 0 I I I 4 �I '1 1 I I I I I I I , I I I V '1 J J J J J J J J • J J J 4. 9 I 1 I I I I I I I I I Worker •1 0.9535 1 0.5937 1 6.2284 1 0.0190 1 2.2355 1 0.0139 1 2.2494 1 0.5929 1 0.0128 0.6057 • I 1,892.292 1 1,892.292 1 0.0490 1 i 1,893.518 (p 'I I I I I I I I I . I 0 1 0 1 I 1 0 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 I 1 1 Total 1.0559 4.2092 7.0166 0.0293 2.4917 0.0196 2.5113 0.6666 0.0183 0.6849 2,977.317 2,977.317 0.1261 2,980.470 cri co 0 0 4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.8233 1 8.2299 1 11.9133 1 0.0201 I 1 0.3464 1 0.3464 I 1 0.3392 : 0.3392 • i 1,913.676 1 1,913 676 1 0.2707 1 i 1,920.444 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 1 I 1 I I I 4 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I Total 0.8233 8.2299 11.9133 0.0201 0.3464 0.3464 0.3392 0.3392 1,913.676 1,913.676 0.2707 1,920.444 1 1 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I � I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I , , 1 I I 1 .1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - Vendor 9 0.0772 I 2.7944 I 0.6705 I 0.0100 I 0.2562 I2.8300e- I 0.2590 I 0.0738 I2.7100e- 0.0765 • 1,055.593 11,055.593 I 0.0618 I i 1,057.137 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 4 I 4 I I I 7 �I •1 I I I I 1 I I I , • 1 I I V '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. SD .1 I I I I I I I I I I I n Worker •1 0.8947 1 0.5344 I 5.7101 1 0.0183 1 2.2355 I 0.0135 1 2.2490 I 0.5929 1 0.0124 0.6053 • I 1,821.266 11,821.266 1 0.0440 I i 1,822.365 (p 'I I I I I I I I I � 1 8 I 8 1 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 1 I I C) Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 0 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I Off-Road •i 0.3964 1 7.7117 1 13.3333 1 0.0201 1 1 0.0288 1 0.0288 1 1 0.0288 0.0288 • 0.0000 i 1,913.676 1 1,913.676 1 0.2707 1 i 1,920.444 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 0 I 0 I I ;1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I I 4 Total 0.3964 7.7117 13.3333 0.0201 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 1,913.676 1,913.676 0.2707 1,920.444 0 0 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 ;I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 .1 I I I I I I I I , , I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0772 1 2.7944 1 0.6705 1 0.0100 1 0.2562 1 2.8300e- 1 0.2590 1 0.0738 1 2.7100e- 0.0765 • 1,055.593 1 1,055.593 1 0.0618 1 i 1,057.137 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 4 I 4 I I I 7 �I '1 I I I I I I I I , I I I V '1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J '1 I I I I I I I I I I I 4. 2 Worker •1 0.8947 I 0.5344 1 5.7101 1 0.0183 I 2.2355 1 0.0135 I 2.2490 1 0.5929 I 0.0124 0.6053 • I 1,821.266 1 1,821.266 1 0.0440 I i 1,822.365 d) 'I I I I I I I I I � 1 8 I 8 1 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I I I , . 1 1 I I 1 C) Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I T I I I Off-Road •i 0.7749 1 7.7896 1 11.9059 1 0.0201 I 1 0.3037 1 0.3037 I 1 0.2971 0.2971 • 1 1,913.541 1 1,913.541 1 0.2663 1 i 1,920.199 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 6 I 6 1 I I 2 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I I Total 0.7749 7.7896 11.9059 0.0201 0.3037 0.3037 0.2971 0.2971 1,913.541 1,913.541 0.2663 1,920.199 6 6 2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I Hauling 9i 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 •▪I 1 I I I I I I I � I I I 1 •I I I I I I I I I , , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0761 I 2.8087 1 0.6463 I 9.9900e- I 0.2562 I 2.8200e- I 0.2590 I 0.0738 I 2.6900e- 0.0765 • 1,054.662 1 1,054.662 I 0.0618 I i 1,056.206 'I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . 3 I 3 I I I 3 T •1 I I I I 1 I 1 I , • 1 I I V '1 J J J J J J J J J J J 4. q I 1 I I I I I I I I I co Worker 9 0.8442 I 0.4839 I 5.3154 I 0.0177 I 2.2355 I 0.0134 I 2.2489 I 0.5929 I 0.0123 0.6052 • 1,762.225 11,762.225 1 0.0401 1 i 1,763.228 (p •1 I I I I I I I I � 0 1 0 I I I 6 I I I I I I I I , • 1 I I 1 C) Total 0.9203 3.2927 5.9617 0.0277 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6816 2,816.887 2,816.887 0.1019 2,819.434 N 2 2 9 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.3964 1 7.7117 1 13.3333 1 0.0201 I 1 0.0288 1 0.0288 I 1 0.0288 0.0288 • 0.0000 i 1,913.541 1 1,913.541 1 0.2663 1 i 1,920.199 'I I I I I I I I I 1 6 I 6 I I ;I 1 I I I I I I I , . I I I I 2 Total 0.3964 7.7117 13.3333 0.0201 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 1,913.541 1,913.541 0.2663 1,920.199 6 6 2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 .I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0761 I 2.8087 1 0.6463 I 9.9900e- I 0.2562 I 2.8200e- I 0.2590 I 0.0738 I 2.6900e- 0.0765 • 1,054.662 1 1,054.662 I 0.0618 I i 1,056.206 'I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . 3 I 3 I I I 3 �I 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J • J J J 4. Worker 9i 0.8442 I 0.4839 1 5.3154 I 0.0177 I 2.2355 I 0.0134 I 2.2489 I 0.5929 I 0.0123 0.6052 • 1,762.225 I 1,762.225 I 0.0401 I i 1,763.228 (p .I I I I I I I I I . 0 I 0 I I I 6 I I I I I I I I , . 1 I I 1 Total 0.9203 3.2927 5.9617 0.0277 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6816 2,816.887 2,816.887 0.1019 2,819.434 W 2 2 9 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I 1 I I I I I I Off-Road •i 1.0327 1 10.1917 1 14.5842 1 0.0228 I 0.5102 1 0.5102 I 1 0.4694 0.4694 • i 2,207.584 1 2,207 584 1 0.7140 1 i 2,225.433 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I 1 I I 1 6 'I I I I I I •I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J I J J J T I I I I I I I I • I 1 1 1 Paving 90.0437 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.0764 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 : 1 ' Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I 1 .▪1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0772 1 2.7944 1 0.6705 1 0.0100 1 0.2562 1 2.8300e- 1 0.2590 1 0.0738 1 2.7100e- 0.0765 • 1,055.593 1 1,055.593 1 0.0618 1 i 1,057.137 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 4 I 4 I I I 7 -11 '1 I I I I 1 I I I • 1 I I V '1 J J J J J J J J J J J .I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I co Worker •1 0.1789 I 0.1069 1 1.1420 I 3.6500e- I 0.4471 1 2.7000e- I 0.4498 1 0.1186 I 2.4900e- 0.1211 • 1364.2534 1 364.2534 1 8.7900e- I 1 364.4731 �p ;� 1 I 1 003 I 1 003 1 I 1 003 . I I I 003 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . 1 1 1 1 C) Total 0.2562 2.9012 1.8125 0.0137 0.7033 5.5300e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.2000e- 0.1975 1,419.846 1,419.846 0.0706 1,421.610 003 003 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.3341 1 10.0395 1 17.2957 1 0.0228 I 1 0.0374 1 0.0374 I 1 0.0374 0.0374 • 0.0000 i 2,207.584 1 2,207 584 1 0.7140 1 i 2,225.433 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I 1 I I 1 6 '1 I I I I I •I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J I J J J T I I I I I I I I • I 1 1 Paving 90.0437 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 : 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.3778 10.0395 17.2957 0.0228 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I ' Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I 1 .▪1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0772 1 2.7944 1 0.6705 1 0.0100 1 0.2562 1 2.8300e- 1 0.2590 1 0.0738 1 2.7100e- 0.0765 • 1,055.593 1 1,055.593 1 0.0618 1 i 1,057.137 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 4 I 4 I I I 7 �-I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J •• J J J 'I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 2 Worker -1 0.1789 1 0.1069 I 1.1420 1 3.6500e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 • 1364.2534 1 364.2534 1 8.7900e- I : 364.4731 �p ;� I I 1 003 I I 003 I I 1 003 . I I I 003 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . 1 1 1 1 C) Total 0.2562 2.9012 1.8125 0.0137 0.7033 5.5300e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.2000e- 0.1975 1,419.846 1,419.846 0.0706 1,421.610 01 003 003 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.10 Architectural Coatings - East Bldg - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Archit.Coating •i 32.7482 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •• 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I I ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 1.2777 1 8.6866 1 12.0741 1 0.0198 1 1 0.4721 1 0.4721 1 1 0.4721 ; 0.4721 • 1 1,876.320 1 1,876.320 1 0.1123 1 1 1,879.126 'I I 1 I I I I I I I 3 1 3 I I I 7 1 1 I I I I I 1 . I I I 1 1 Total 34.0260 8.6866 12.0741 0.0198 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 1,876.320 1,876.320 0.1123 1,879.126 3 3 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 .I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V •1 J J J J J • J J J T'I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1789 0.1069 1.1420 3.6500e- 1 0.4471 12.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 364.2534 1364.2534 1 8.7900e- 1364.4731 CD .1 1 I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . I I I 1 Total 0.1789 0.1069 1.1420 3.6500e- 0.4471 2.7000e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4900e- 0.1211 364.2534 364.2534 8.7900e- 364.4731 6) 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.10 Architectural Coatings - East Bldg - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 Archit.Coating •i 32.7482 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 •• 1 1 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I f J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I Off-Road •1 1.2777 1 8.6866 1 12.0741 1 0.0198 1 i 0.4721 1 0.4721 1 1 0.4721 0.4721 • 0.0000 1 1,876.320 1 1,876.320 1 0.1123 1 I 1,879.126 9 I 1 I I I I I 1 3 1 3 I I I 7 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 . 1 I I 1 Total 34.0260 8.6866 12.0741 0.0198 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.0000 1,876.320 1,876.320 0.1123 1,879.126 3 3 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I i 0.0000 .I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V '1 J J J J J • J J J T '1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1789 0.1069 1 1.1420 3.6500e- I 0.4471 1 2.7000e- I 0.4498 1 0.1186 12.4900e- 0.1211 364.2534 1 364.2534 1 8.7900e- 1364.4731 CD .1 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 Total 0.1789 0.1069 1.1420 3.6500e- 0.4471 2.7000e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4900e- 0.1211 364.2534 364.2534 8.7900e- 364.4731 v 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I 1 I I I I I I Off-Road •i 1.0327 1 10.1917 1 14.5842 1 0.0228 I 0.5102 1 0.5102 I 1 0.4694 0.4694 • i 2,207.584 1 2,207 584 1 0.7140 1 i 2,225.433 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I 1 I I 1 6 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J I J J J T I I I I I I I I • I 1 1 1 Paving 90.0491 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.0819 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 : 1 ' Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I 1 .▪1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0772 1 2.7944 1 0.6705 1 0.0100 1 0.2562 1 2.8300e- 1 0.2590 1 0.0738 1 2.7100e- 0.0765 • 1,055.593 1 1,055.593 1 0.0618 1 i 1,057.137 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 4 I 4 I I I 7 -11 '1 I I I I 1 I I I • 1 I I V '1 J J J J J J J J J J J .I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I co Worker -1 0.1789 1 0.1069 I 1.1420 1 3.6500e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 • 1364.2534 1 364.2534 1 8.7900e- I 1 364.4731 �p ;� 1 I 1 003 I 1 003 1 I 1 003 . I I I 003 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . 1 1 1 1 C) Total 0.2562 2.9012 1.8125 0.0137 0.7033 5.5300e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.2000e- 0.1975 1,419.846 1,419.846 0.0706 1,421.610 Co 003 003 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •i 0.3341 1 10.0395 1 17.2957 1 0.0228 1 1 0.0374 1 0.0374 I 1 0.0374 ; 0.0374 • 0.0000 i 2,207.584 1 2,207 584 1 0.7140 1 i 2,225.433 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I 1 I I 1 6 'I I I I I I •I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I I I I I I I I 1 1 Paving •1 0.0491 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 : 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.3832 10.0395 17.2957 0.0228 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0374 0.0000 2,207.584 2,207.584 0.7140 2,225.433 1 1 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I ' Hauling •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I 1 .▪1 J J J J J J J J I J J J - I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I Vendor 9 0.0772 1 2.7944 1 0.6705 1 0.0100 1 0.2562 1 2.8300e- 1 0.2590 1 0.0738 1 2.7100e- 0.0765 • 1,055.593 1 1,055.593 1 0.0618 1 i 1,057.137 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 4 I 4 I I I 7 �-I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V 'I J J J J J J J J •• J J J 'I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 2 Worker •1 0.1789 1 0.1069 1 1.1420 1 3.6500e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7000e- 1 0.4498 1 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 • 1364.2534 1 364.2534 1 8.7900e- I 1 364.4731 �p ;� I I 1 003 I I 003 I I 1 003 . I I I 003 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . 1 1 1 1 C) Total 0.2562 2.9012 1.8125 0.0137 0.7033 5.5300e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.2000e- 0.1975 1,419.846 1,419.846 0.0706 1,421.610 CO 003 003 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 45 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Archit.Coating •i 32.7482 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •• 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I I ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 1.2777 1 8.6866 1 12.0741 1 0.0198 1 1 0.4721 1 0.4721 1 1 0.4721 ; 0.4721 • 1 1,876.320 1 1,876.320 1 0.1123 1 1 1,879.126 'I I 1 I I I I I I I 3 1 3 I I I 7 1 1 I I I I I 1 . I I I 1 1 Total 34.0260 8.6866 12.0741 0.0198 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 1,876.320 1,876.320 0.1123 1,879.126 3 3 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 .I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V •1 J J J J J • J J J T'I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1789 0.1069 1.1420 3.6500e- 1 0.4471 12.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 364.2534 1364.2534 1 8.7900e- 1364.4731 CD .1 1 I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I . I I I 1 Total 0.1789 0.1069 1.1420 3.6500e- 0.4471 2.7000e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4900e- 0.1211 364.2534 364.2534 8.7900e- 364.4731 0 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 46 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2023 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I ' 1 1 1 Archit.Coating •i 32.7482 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •• 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I I ; J J J J J J J J •• J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Off-Road •1 1.2777 1 8.6866 1 12.0741 1 0.0198 1 1 0.4721 1 0.4721 1 1 0.4721 ; 0.4721 • 0.0000 1 1,876.320 1 1,876.320 1 0.1123 1 1 1,879.126 'I I 1 I I I I I I I 3 1 3 I I I 7 1 1 I I I I I 1 . I I I 1 1 Total 34.0260 8.6866 12.0741 0.0198 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.0000 1,876.320 1,876.320 0.1123 1,879.126 3 3 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 .I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 .I I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 J J J J J J J J - J J J 4. Vendor 9 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I I I I V •1 J J J J J • J J J T'I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I Worker 9 0.1789 0.1069 1.1420 3.6500e- 1 0.4471 12.7000e- 1 0.4498 I 0.1186 1 2.4900e- 0.1211 364.2534 1364.2534 1 8.7900e- 1364.4731 CD .1 1 I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I 003 I 1 I I I I I I I I . 1 1 1 1 Total 0.1789 0.1069 1.1420 3.6500e- 0.4471 2.7000e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4900e- 0.1211 364.2534 364.2534 8.7900e- 364.4731 003 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 47 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 1 PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated i• 2.4144 i 15.9946 1 29.9789 i 0.1375 i 11.7290 i 0.0853 i 11.8143 i 3.1381 i 0.0795 3.2176 : i 14,064.27 1 14,064.27 i 0.6538 i i 14,080.62 •� 72 72 I i 32 '� I I I I I I I I ; I I I 1 :1 } } } } } } } } * I- } } } r Unmitigated • 2.4144 • 15.9946 • 29.9789 • 0.1375 • 11.7290 • 0.0853 • 11.8143 . 3.1381 • 0.0795 . 3.2176 • • 14,064.27• 14,064.27 • 0.6538 • • 14,080.62 72 72 32 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,419.32 ; 1,419.32 1419.32 • 5,197,323 5,197,323 City Park + 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y f Parking Lot ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 •. Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 w.co Strip Mall + 83.16 , 83.16 83.16 • 304,501 • 304,501 Total I 1,502.48 1,502.48 1,502.48 I 5,501,824 I 5,501,824 v IV 4.3 Trip Type Information CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 48 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project-San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.06 10.06 : 10.06 40.00 20.00 40.00 100 • 0 0 City Park ;• 16.60 8.40 T 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 •T 19.00 • 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse • 14.70 I 5.90 • ? 8.70 40.00 20.00 T 40.00 •• 100 •• 0 • 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator:▪ 16.60 8.40 : 6.90 I 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 7 33.00 48.00 T• • • •19.00 • 77 • 19 4 Parking Lot ;▪ 16.60 8.40 -r 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 •T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool ;• 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 33.00 48.00 : 19.00 • 52 •• 39 9 • 4 r • Strip Mall • 10.06 • 10.06 10.06 • 16.60 64.40 • 19.00 • 100 • 0 : 0 • 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 LDT2 I MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303 i 0.181800: 0.111169 i 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365: 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i + City Park • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i -i- i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- i ii ii ii ii i i i i i i i i + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + General Office Building • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i 1 1 1 + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745; 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Hittorical Energy Use: N v m 5.4 Mitigation Measures Energy cp c,, Install High Efficiency Lighting CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 49 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day m NaturalGas •i 0.1146 i 0.9798 : 0.4197 1 6.2500e- i I 0.0792 i 0.0792 i i 0.0792 : 0.0792 : i 1,250.266: 1,250.266 i 0.0240 i 0.0229 1 1,257.696 Mitigated .1 I I I 003 I I I I I I. 4 : 4 I I 1 1 . I 1 I NaturalGas •• 0.1146 • 0.9798 • 0.4197 • 6.2500e- • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 1,250.266• 1,250.266• 0.0240 • 0.0229 • 1,257.696 Unmitigated 003 4 4 1 0) CO CD O v CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 50 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid I 10497.7 •1 0.1132 1 0.9674 1 0.4117 1 6.1800e- 1 1 0.0782 1 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 1 1,235.025 1 0.0237 1 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I '1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 I .11 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I , . I I I 1 I I I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 1 1 I 1 City Park I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 a 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 9 I I I I I I I 1 . I 1 I I 1 I .I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 r 41 J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous i 62.0919 •1 6.7000e- 5.7200e- 1 2.4300e- 1 4.0000e- 1 1 4.6000e- 4.6000e- 1 1 4.6000e- 4.6000e- a 1 7.3049 1 7.3049 I 1.4000e- 1 1.3000e- i 7.3483 e I .1 004 I 003 I 003 I 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 • 1 I I 004 I 004 i 1 .11 I I I I 1 1 1 I , . 1 1 I 1 I I : 1 : : : : 1 I 1 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking I 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I .11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I , . I 1 I 1 1 I : 1 1 1 : : 1 1 1 1 I 1 General Office 152.6394 •1 5.7000e- 5.1600e- 1 4.3400e- 1 3.00OOe- 1 3.9000e- 3.9000e- 1 1 3.9000e- 3.9000e- I 1 6.1929 1 6.1929 I 1.2000e- 1 1.1000e- I 6.2297 Building I ;: 004 I 003 1 003 I 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 • 1 I I 1 1 • I I I I 1 1 I 1 , . I I 004 1 004 r 41 J J J J J J J J . I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Parking Lot I 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 9 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 1 .I I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I 1 r 41 J J J J J J J J I J J J T I : : 1 : 1 : 1 1 1 1 I 1 Recreational I 0 •I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 Swimming Pool I '1 I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 1 ; I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 I 1 1 I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 Strip Mall i 14.8162 •1 1.6000e- 1.4500e- 1 1.2200e- 1 1.00OOe- 1 1 1.1000e- 1 1.1000e- 1 1 1.1000e- 1.1000e- • 1 1.7431 1 1.7431 1 3.00OOe- 1 3.00OOe- i 1.7534 I '1 004 I 003 I 003 I 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 1 I .1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 005 1 005 Total 0.1146 0.9798 0.4197 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.266 1,250.266 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.696 003 4 4 1 0) CO CD C) v 01 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 51 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid 1 10.4977 •1 0.1132 0.9674 I 0.4117 I 6.1800e- I I 0.0782 I 0.0782 I I 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 11,235.025 I 0.0237 I 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I '1 1 I 1 003 1 1 1 I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 I ;1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 I 1 : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 1 1 I 1 City Park 1 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 1 I I I I 1 I I , 1 I 1 I I I .I I I I I I I I I , . I I 1 I I r 41 J J J J J I J J J T 1 : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous 10.06209199 6.7000e- 5.7200e- I 2.4300e- I 4.0000e- I I 4.6000e- 4.6000e- I I 4.6000e- 4.6000e- a 1 7.3049 I 7.3049 1 1.4000e- I 1.3000e- i 7.3483 e I ;1 004 1 003 I 003 1 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 . 1 I 1 004 I 004 i I .I I I I I 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking 1 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 : 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I ; 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 . 1 1 I 1 1 I .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 I 1 General Office 10.0526394.1 5.7000e- 1 5.1600e- I 4.3400e- I 3.0000e- I I 3.9000e- 3.9000e- I I 3.9000e- 3.9000e- a 1 6.1929 I 6.1929 1 1.2000e- I 1.1000e- i 6.2297 '1 004 1 003 I 003 1 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 I 1 Building I •I I I I I 1 1 I 1 , I I I 004 i 004 1 t41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Parking Lot 1 0 •1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 1 I I I I 1 I I . 1 I 1 I I I .I I I I I I I I I , . I I 1 I 1 r 41 J J J J J ., I J J J T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Recreational 1 0 •1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 Swimming Pool I ; I I I I I I I I . 1 I I I 1 I .1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Strip Mall 10.0148162.1 1.6000e- I 1.4500e- I 1.2200e- I 1.0000e- I I 1.1000e- I 1.1000e- I I 1.1000e- 1.1000e- I 1 1.7431 I 1.7431 1 3.0000e- I 3.0000e- i 1.7534 1 '1 004 1 003 I 003 1 005 I I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 1 I �1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I , I 1 1 005 1 005 Total 0.1146 0.9798 0.4197 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.266 1,250.266 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.696 003 4 4 1 6.0 Area Detail 63 Mitigation Measures Area Um only Natural Gas Hearths rn CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 52 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated i'• 8.9995 i 3.9135 i 23.0563 i 0.0245 i i 0.4154 i 0.4154 I i 0.4154 : 0.4154 : 0.0000 i 4,718.741 i 4,718.741 i 0.1271 i 0.0858 i 4,747.486 � I I I I I I 8 1 8 I I 1 8 91 I I I I I I I . I i a I- } 1- } 1. 1. 1. } * -. I. } } } Unmitigated • 8.9995 • 3.9135 • 23.0563 • 0.0245 • • 0.4154 • 0.4154 • • 0.4154 • 0.4154 • 0.0000 •4,718.741 •4,718.741 • 0.1271 • 0.0858 •4,747.486 8 8 8 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.6460 i 1 1 1 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • i : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating :: I I I I I I I I ' I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • . I 1 I I i J J J Consumer .1 7.2748 i 1 i i 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 . i i 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Products I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 i `�Hearth 9 0.4290 1 3.6660 1 1.5600 i 0.0234 1: : 0.2964 : 0.2964 1: i 0.2964 0.2964 : 0.0000 i 4,680.000:4,680.000: 0.0897 : 0.0858 :4,707.810 9 1 I 1 1 1 1 I • . : 0 : 0 : I 1 9 DJ '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • I I I 1 i Tandscaping 9 0.6498 1 0.2475 i 21.4963 i 1.1400e- i : 0.1190 i 0.1190 : i 0.1190 0.1190 • i 38.7418 i 38.7418 i 0.0374 i : 39.6759 91 1 : 003 : 1 I I I • . I 1 1 0• '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • . 1 1 1 v Total 8.9995 3.9135 23.0563 0.0245 0.4154 0.4154 0.4154 0.4154 0.0000 4,718.741 4,718.741 0.1271 0.0858 4,747.486 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 53 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural • I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i 0.6460 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 Coating •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I Ti ; J J J J J J J a V 1 J J J I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 Consumer •1 7.2748 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 Products :: 1 1 I I I I 1 I . 1 1 I 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J I 1 : : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Hearth •1 0.4290 1 3.6660 1 1.5600 0.0234 1 0.2964 1 0.2964 1 1 0.2964 0.2964 : 0.0000 1 4,680.000 1 4,680.000 1 0.0897 1 0.0858 i 4,707.810 9 I I I 1 I I I I . 1 0 I 0 I I 9'1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I . I I I 1 1 �I J J a J a J J a V I J J J T I 1 : : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Landscaping •1 0.6498 1 0.2475 1 21.4963 1.1400e- 1 0.1190 1 0.1190 1 1 0.1190 0.1190 � 1 38.7418 1 38.7418 1 0.0374 1 i 39.6759 '1 I I I 003 1 I I I I . I I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 Total 8.9995 3.9135 23.0563 0.0245 0.4154 0.4154 0.4154 0.4154 0.0000 4,718.741 4,718.741 0.1271 0.0858 4,747.486 8 8 8 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 833 Waste Detail 84 Mitigation Measures Waste co 9.0 Operational Offroad CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 54 of 54 Date: 3/15/2022 1:31 PM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Equipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Days/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year r Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation v CO CD 0 CO Attachment D SWAP E Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica,CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F.Hagemann,P.G.,C.Hg.,QSD,QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Education: M.S.Degree,Geology,California State University Los Angeles,Los Angeles,CA,1984. B.A.Degree,Geology,Humboldt State University,Arcata,CA,1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy,contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance,and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist,and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste,air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner,Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise(SWAPE)(2003-present); • Geology Instructor,Golden West College,2010-2104,2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst,Komex H2O Science,Inc.(2000--2003); Page 1080 • Executive Director,Orange Coast Watch(2001-2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist,National Park Service,Water Resources Division(1998-2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member,San Francisco State University,Department of Geosciences(1993- 1998); • Instructor,College of Marin,Department of Science(1990-1995); • Geologist,U.S.Forest Service(1986-1998);and • Geologist,Dames&Moore(1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE,Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste,water resources, water quality,air quality,greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis,sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities. • Expert witness on numerous cases including,for example,perfluorooctanoic acid(PFOA) contamination of groundwater,MTBE litigation,air toxins at hazards at a school,CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation,and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc.,Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S.EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive,electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use,research,and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive,electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use,research,and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment,results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 Page 1081 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses,Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater.Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality,including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield,and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport,ensured adequacy of monitoring networks,and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment,soil,and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues,wrote technical guidance,and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S.EPA workgroups,including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.He prepared geologic reports,conducted 3 Page 1082 public hearings,and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities,mine reclamation,and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote"part B"permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality,including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA,RCRA,NEPA,NRDA,and the Clean Water Act to control military,mining,and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks,including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee,a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles,these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance,including the Office of Research and Development publication,Oxygenates in Water:Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 4 Page 1083 principles into the policy-making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S.Forest Service,Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range.Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field,and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford,Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998,Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University,held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology,oceanography(lab and lecture),hydrogeology,and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach,California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony,Reports,Papers and Presentations: Hagemann,M.F.,2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference,Eugene,Oregon. Hagemann,M.F.,2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9,San Francisco,California. Hagemann,M.F.,2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation,Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005,Denver,Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas,NV(served on conference organizing committee). 5 Page 1084 Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California,Los Angeles. Brown,A.,Farrow,J.,Gray,A. and Hagemann,M.,2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference,National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix,AZ(served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences,Irvine,CA. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting,Pechanga,CA. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives,Parker,AZ. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting,Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S.EPA Region 9. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate:A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. From Tank to Tap:A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S.EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. 6 Page 1085 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann,M.F.,2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.Water Resources Division,National Park Service,Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage.Water Resources Division,National Park Service,Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting,Asheville,North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting,Las Vegas,Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station,Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons,Salt Lake City. Hagemann,M.F.,Fukunaga,G.L.,1996,The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui,Hawaii.Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting,Maui, October 1996. Hagemann,M.F.,Fukanaga,G.L.,1996,Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te rizati on and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California.Proceedings,California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater.California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 7 Page 1086 Hagemann,M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention...Proceedings,Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting,v.35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011. 8 Page 1087 Attachment E SWAP E Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE Litigation Support For the Environment 2656 29th Street,Suite 201 Santa Monica,California 90405 Attn:Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Mobil:(310)795-2335 Office:(310)452-5555 Fax:(310)452-5550 Email:prosenfeld(aswape.com Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport&Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment&Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry,University of Washington, 1999.Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S.Environmental Science,U.C.Berkeley, 1995.Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A.Environmental Studies,U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years' experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural,and military sources. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021 Page 1088 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise(SWAPE);2003 to present;Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health;2007 to 2011;Lecturer(Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health;2003 to 2006;Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program;2002-2004;Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment,2001-2002;Research Associate Komex H2O Science,2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association,2002-2004;Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001;Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego,2000-2001;Remediation Project Manager Ogden(now Amec), San Diego,2000-2000;Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego,California, 1999—2000;Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996—1999; Scientist James River Corp.,Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber,Davenport,California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp.,California and USFS,Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St.Kitts,West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy,L.L.,Clay T.,Byers,V.,Rosenfeld P.E.(2019)Hospital,Health,and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires,Richmond,California 2007 and 2012.Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons,R.A., Seo,Y.Rosenfeld,P.,(2015)Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value.Journal of Real Estate Research.27(3):321-342 Chen,J.A,Zapata A.R., Sutherland A.J.,Molmen,D.R.,Chow,B. S.,Wu,L.E., Rosenfeld,P.E.,Hesse,R.C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science,8(6),622-632. Rosenfeld,P.E. &Feng,L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry,Amsterdam:Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget,IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113-125. Feng, L.,Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland,A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld,P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry.Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17),319-327. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021 Page 1089 Tam L.K..,Wu C. D.,Clark J.J. and Rosenfeld,P.E. (2008).A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds,70,002252-002255. Tam L. K..,Wu C. D.,Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld,P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley,A.R. A. Scott,J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld,P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science& Technology 55(5),345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water,Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science& Technology 55(5),335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts:Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology.49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet(2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004.New Orleans,October 2-6,2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology.49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology,49(9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows,Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4),310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office,Publications Clearinghouse(MS-6), Sacramento,CA Publication#442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld,P.E.,and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4),363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research,73,388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4),247-262. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021 Page 1090 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond,Washington State. Rosenfeld,P.E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail.Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts,3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network,7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil.Doctoral Thesis.University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County,California. Rosenfeld,P.E.(1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester&Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World.Bachelors Thesis.University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International,(May 9-10,2018)800 Fifth Avenue,Suite 101 Seattle,WA. Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara,CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston,MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston,MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams(AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting,Lecture conducted from Tuscon,AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States"Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams(AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon,AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution.Lecture conducted from Tallinn,Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23''Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts,Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23'Annual International Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021 Page 1091 Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld,P.E.(October 15-18,2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23''Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts,Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane(TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS)Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego,CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego,CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 —25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey's C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia,PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel,Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine,California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27,2005).Fate,Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel,Marina Del Ray,California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel,Virginia Beach,Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor,Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor,Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology,A National Problem and Unquantified Liability.National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel,Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021 Page 1092 Hagemann,M.F., Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D.and Rob Hesse(2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives.Lecture conducted from Parker,AZ. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando,FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties,Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane.National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants..Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum.Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel,Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable.Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association.Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association.Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld,P.E. and Grey,M.A. (November 11-14,2002).Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility.Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis,Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores,California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association.Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld,P.E.,and C.L.Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America.Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil.Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021 Page 1093 Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan,Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002.Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego,Ventura,and San Francisco.Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments,and Soil Stability. U.C.Berkeley,Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal:To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost.2001. Synagro Technologies,Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal:investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County,Department of Research and Technology,Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021 Page 1094 United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation,Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit,St Clair County,Illinois Martha Custer et al.,Plaintiff vs.Cerro Flow Products,Inc.,Defendants Case No.:No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition,5-14-2021 Trial,October 8-4-2021 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Rafferty,Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK, Case No.:No. 18-L-6845 Rosenfeld Deposition,6-28-2021 In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe,Plaintiff vs.Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail,Defendants Case No.:No. 17-cv-8517 Rosenfeld Deposition,5-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al.,Plaintiff vs.The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm,L.L.C.,Utah Shelter Systems,Inc. Case Number CV20127-094749 Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson,Jeremy et al Plaintiffs,vs. CNA Insurance Company et al. Case Number 1:17-cv-000508 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California,County of San Bernardino Gary Garner,Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs.BNSF Railway Company. Case No. 1720288 Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California,County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs.Union Pacific Railroad,A Corporation,et al. Case No. 18STCV01162 Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020 In the Circuit Court of Jackson County,Missouri Karen Cornwell,Plaintiff vs.Marathon Petroleum,LP,Defendant. Case No.: 1716-CV10006 Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019 In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al,Plaintiffs, vs.United States Metals Refining Company et.al.Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021 Page 1095 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk,Plaintiffs, vs.Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH&Co.Bulker KG MS"Conti Perdido" Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles—Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al.,vs.Ifran Khan et al.,Defendants Case No.:No.BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles—Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al.vs El Adobe Apts.Inc.et al.,Defendants Case No.:No.BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018;Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al.Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al.,Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition,3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County,Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al.,Plaintiff vs.Dow Agrosciences,LLC,et al.,Defendants Cause No.: 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al.,Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation,et al.,Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County,Illinois Martha Custer et al.,Plaintiff vs.Cerro Flow Products,Inc.,Defendants Case No.:No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition,8-23-2017 In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs.The BP Exploration et al.,Defendants Case:No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW Rosenfeld Deposition,4-22-2020 In The Superior Court of the State of California,For The County of Los Angeles Warm Gilbert and Penny Gilber,Plaintiff vs.BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019(c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017,Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi,Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper,et al.,Plaintiffs, vs.Meritor Inc.,et al.,Defendants Case Number:4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021 Page 1096 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington,County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al.,Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc.,Defendants Case No.:No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition,February 2017 Trial,March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California,County of Alameda Charles Spain.,Plaintiff vs.Thermo Fisher Scientific,et al.,Defendants Case No.:RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn,et al.,Plaintiffs vs.Doug Hoksbergen,et al.,Defendants Case No.:LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition,August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County,West Virginia Robert Andrews,et al.v.Antero,et al. Civil Action NO. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition,June 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et.al.Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation,Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition:May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit,in and For Broward County,Florida Walter Hinton,et.al.Plaintiff,vs.City of Fort Lauderdale,Florida,a Municipality,Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition:December 2014 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al,Plaintiff vs.Aruba et al,Defendant. Case Number cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition:March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial:April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht,et al.,Plaintiffs, vs.Republic Services,Inc.,et al.,Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons.w/2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama,Northern Division James K.Benefield,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.International Paper Company,Defendant. Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010,June 2011 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Drummond Company Inc.,et al.,Defendants Civil Action No.CV 2008-2076 Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010 In the United States District Court,Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Citgo Petroleum Corporation,et al.,Defendants. Case Number 2:07CV1052 Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009 Paul E.Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021 Page 1097 EXHIBIT D LOZ EAU DRURYLLP T 510.836.4200 1939 Harrison Street,Ste.150 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 Oakland,CA 94612 victona@lazeaudrury,cam _.....addiii Via E-mail and US Mail October 1, 2021 Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 vincent.acuna@cityofrc.us Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-00440) Dear Mr. Acuna and Planning Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-0440), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction, use, and maintenance of a 260-unit apartment community, located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("Project"). After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude the IS/MND fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code ("PRC") section 21000, et seq. This comment has been prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE"). Mr. Offerman's comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Mr. Smallwood's comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. SWAPE's comment and the consultants' curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Page 1099 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 2 of 31 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project would involve the construction of a 260-unit apartment complex on 5.2 acres. Applicant is requesting to construct a mixed-use development comprising 259 residential units, 2 commercial units, and 1 live-work unit, and a Minor Exception to reduce the number of required parking stalls by 12% within the Community Commercial (CC) District. More specifically, the proposed Project would include the following elements: • Two four-story buildings, with a maximum height of 60 feet; • 259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet; • 1 live-work unit, consisting of two stories and 1,570 square feet; • 3,339 square feet of commercial space (816 square feet in 1 live-work unit and 2,523 square feet of stand-alone commercial space); • 465 parking spaces, with 265 parking spaces located in a below-grade parking garage and the remaining 200 parking spaces located on a surface parking lot on the southern and eastern portions of the Project site; • Approximately 26 bicycle parking spaces; • Approximately 5,500 square feet of indoor amenity space, which includes a 1,600 square-foot lobby/leasing office, a 1,400 square-foot fitness center, and a 1,400 square-foot Club Room in the west building, and a 1,500 square-foot Business Center in the east building; • Two courtyards and a paseo, offering a pool and additional outdoor amenities; • Landscaping surrounding both buildings; • Sidewalks along Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; • Intersection improvements at Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard including lane modifications and restriping; • Creation of a bus stop in front of the Project on Foothill Boulevard; and • Undergrounding of existing Southern California Edison (SCE) overhead 12 kilovolt (kV) power lines along Etiwanda Avenue. IS/MND, p. 1-13. The Project site is located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is bound by Foothill Boulevard, a vacant lot, and condominiums to the north; Etiwanda Avenue and a shopping center to the west; and residential single-family homes to the south and east. The 5.56-acre site comprises two parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 0229-311-14 and 0229-311-15), which are currently vacant and undeveloped. II. LEGAL STANDARD As the California Supreme Court has held, "[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a Page 1100 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 3 of 31 nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR." Communities for a Better Env't v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504-505). "Significant environmental effect" is defined very broadly as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." Pub. Res. Code ("PRC") § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial."No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83. "The `foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Communities for a Better Env't v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA). The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an "environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. An EIR is required if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a "fair argument" that the project will have a significant environmental effect. PRC, §§ 21100, 21064. Since "[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process," by allowing the agency "to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR]," negative declarations are allowed only in cases where "the proposed project will not affect the environment at all." Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440. However, mitigation measures may not be construed as project design elements or features in an environmental document under CEQA if such a mischaracterization is significant. See Lotus vs. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645. A "mitigation measure" is a measure designed to minimize a project's significant environmental impacts, PRC § 21002.1(a), while a "project" is defined as including "the Page 1101 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 4 of 31 whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). Unlike mitigation measures, project elements are considered prior to making a significance determination. Measures are not technically "mitigation" under CEQA unless they are incorporated to avoid or minimize "significant" impacts. PRC § 21100(b)(3). To ensure that the project's potential environmental impacts are fully analyzed and disclosed, and that the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is considered in depth, mitigation measures that are not included in the project's design should not be treated as part of the project description. Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 654-55, 656 fn.8. Mischaracterization of a mitigation measure as a project design element or feature is "significant," and therefore amounts to a material error, "when it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project's environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures." Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185. Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study "to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and...there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, "may" means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05. Under the "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: This 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Page 1102 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 5 of 31 Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument. Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that "it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original). CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project's environmental setting or "baseline." CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2). The CEQA "baseline" is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project's anticipated impacts. CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency's environmental review under CEQA: ...must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25 ("Save Our Peninsula"). As the court of appeal has explained, "the impacts of the project must be measured against the 'real conditions on the ground,- and not against hypothetical permitted levels. Id. at 121-23. III. DISCUSSION A. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (September 24, 2021) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose Page 1103 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 6 of 31 residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A. Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, "The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims." Ex. A, pp. 2-3. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that future residents and employees of the commercial spaces will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id., pp. 4-5. This exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id., p. 4. Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project's indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project's location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, Interstate 15 freeway, Auto Club Speedway, etc.) and the high levels of PM 2.5 already present in the ambient air. Id., pp. 10-12. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future employees of the Project. Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id., p. 5. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings' interiors. Ex. A, pp. 12-13. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert's comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597-98 ("under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts"). In addition to assessing the Project's potential health impacts to residents Page 1104 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 7 of 31 and employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects' future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the BAAQMD level. Ex. A, pp. 6-10. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review. The failure to address the Project's formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 ("CBIA"). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment's effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 ("CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present"). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA's statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze "impacts on a project's users or residents that arise from the project's effects on the environment." Id. at 800 (emphasis added). The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents and commercial/industrial employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a "project's users and residents" must be addressed in the CEQA process. The Supreme Court's reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA's statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project's effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. "Section 21083(b)(3)'s express language, for example, requires a finding of a `significant effect on the environment' (§ 21083(b)) whenever the `environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, "the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA's enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme." Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the future residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA's safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site. Page 1105 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 8 of 31 Because Mr. Offermann's expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts. B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife. Wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have significant impacts on several special status species. An EIR is required to mitigate these impacts. Dr. Smallwood's conclusions were informed by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood's site visit in September 2021. Ms. Smallwood visited the site of the proposed Project on Dr. Smallwood's behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on September 4, 2021. Dr. Smallwood's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B. The wildlife baseline relied upon by the IS/MND is woefully inadequate. Wildlife biologist Dr. Smallwood's review of the impacts to wildlife from the Project concluded that the Project may have significant impacts on several special- status species. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts. According to the IS/MND and Biological Resources Assessment ("BRA"), at least 49 special-status plant species and 52 special-status wildlife species have been documented within the Guasti and surrounding eight quadrangles. IS/MND, p. 4-14. A California Natural Diversity Database ("CNDDB") search also yielded four special-status species with occurrences that overlapped with the biological survey area ("BSA") used for the Project, which includes the entire Project site plus a surrounding 500-foot buffer. These special status species included the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parry! var. parryi). Id. While no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the reconnaissance field survey for the Project site, "marginal habitat" for two special-status wildlife species, the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), were identified during the database review is present in the biological survey area. Id. However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, the IS/MND fails to adequately address and mitigate Project impacts to special-status species. The IS/MND's baseline for biological impacts is inadequate, incomplete, and understates the biological values at the Project site for several reasons. See Ex. B, pp. 6-7. First, the IS/MND improperly relies on a single reconnaissance field survey that was insufficient and conducted using minimal effort at the most inappropriate time of the day. According to the IS/MND and BRA, a reconnaissance field survey was conducted by AECOM (2021) on September 24, 2020. See IS/MND, App. B, pp. 5-6. A botanist Page 1106 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 9 of 31 visited the site for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon (14:00 to 15:30 hours), at a time when, as Dr. Smallwood points out, wildlife was least likely to be detected. Ex. B, p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). In fact, temperatures were reportedly 96° to 99° F, which Dr. Smallwood explains is "too hot for a wildlife survey." Id., p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). The IS/MND reports that "no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey." IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, Dr. Smallwood notes that "this report follows from a survey of insufficient effort at the most inappropriate time of day," and as a result, "there should be no surprise that special-status species were undetected." Ex. B, p. 5. Because the IS/MND fails to report which, if any, species of wildlife were detected by the botanist, Dr. Smallwood finds this lack of reporting suggests that "the botanist likely saw no wildlife in the heat of the middle of the afternoon." Id. Consequently, whether the BRA is substantial evidence is not apparent from the face of the document or the IS/MND. Second, the IS/MND misuses the CNDDB. Ex. B, p. 6. When discussing that the CNDDB search yielded four special-status species—i.e. coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry's spineflower—with occurrences that overlapped the BSA, the IS/MND states that "the CNDDB records of these four species had non-specific locations which were not mapped precisely to the locations where the species were observed and each individual observation is a square mile or greater in size; so it is not known whether the observation was actually made precisely within the biological survey area." IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, this statement is flawed. As Dr. Smallwood explains, "CNDDB records are mapped accurately, but exact locations are often not shared publicly as a means to protect the species." Ex. B, p. 6. According to Dr. Smallwood: CNDDB records are intended to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of a special-status species in the project area, but not the species' exact locations. Nor is CNDDB intended to support determinations of species' absence, as the IS/MND implies. CNDDB is intended to flag the occurrences of species in the area, not to provide an exact accounting of where the species is located at the moment. Id. Additionally, the IS/MND further misrepresents CNDDB by implying that the older records are dismissible. See id. The IS/MND states that "...CNDDB records that overlap with the biological survey area are 19 years old or more and since that time, the area has been developed substantially. As a result, it is possible many locations no longer exist. Current site conditions do not provide suitable habitat for these species and none are known to occur or expected to occur within the Project site or vicinity." IS/MND, p. 4- 14. Dr. Smallwood explains that this statement is a misrepresentation of CNDDB because: CNDDB does not imply that species are static, or that locations where they were mapped previously are the only locations where the species would be found later. Wildlife populations are spatially dynamic, shifting Page 1107 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 10 of 31 centers of activity every generation or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979), so it would be inappropriate of CNDDB to assert that locations of past occupancy should still be locations of current occupancy. For this reason, users of CNDDB typically determine whether CNDDB records exist within a 5-mile radius of a proposed project. Occurrences within 5 miles serve as indicators that the species could also occur at the project site, and if so, then protocol-level detection surveys should be performed. Ex. B, p. 6. Given the paucity of the coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry's spineflower in San Bernardino County, the Project's baseline should be informed by protocol level surveys that can determine the presence or absence of these species at the Project site. Third, the surveys conducted for the Project do not provide substantial evidence of the presence or absence of special-status species that are known in the vicinity. The IS/MND asserts that "the BSA generally does not provide suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species." IS/MND, p. 4-14. Dr. Smallwood states that "[t]his assertion, however, lacks evidence in the form of detection survey results." Ex. B, p. 6. According to Dr. Smallwood, detection surveys are designed by species' experts to provide "the best chance for detecting the targeted species by applying the methods and survey effort most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present." Id. Here, the botanist that was charged with surveying the Project site for 90 minutes in the middle of the hot afternoon failed "to come anywhere close to having performed a detection survey for any species of wildlife." Id. As a result, neither the IS/MND nor the BRA was justified in asserting that the Project site lacks special-status species of wildlife. Hence, Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys should be performed, and subsequently assessed and reported in an EIR. Id., p. 22. Furthermore, due to the absence of detection surveys, the IS/MND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. Ex. B, pp. 6-7. Dr. Smallwood states that the "IS/MND repeatedly speculates that for this or that species, anthropogenic disturbances prevent their occurrences," such as the IS/MND exemplifying one such disturbance as routine mowing of the site. Ex. B, p. 6 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-14-4-15). However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, "[t]he IS/MND offers no evidence in defense of its premise that routine mowing precludes special-status species of wildlife." Id., pp. 6-7. As evidence, Dr. Smallwood calls attention to the IS/MND's failure "to identify the Crotch bumble bee host plants that allegedly occur in low density," as well as "make the case that the host plants in question are the only plants useable by Crotch bumble bee." Id., p. 7 (citing IS/MND, p. 4-14). Such failures indicate that the IS/MND "relies on generalities rather than specifics, and on speculation rather than evidence." Id. Additionally, the IS/MND suggests that special-status species, such as the western yellow bat, were killed off by house cats, driven away by traffic noise, and inhibited by the low supply of insect prey. IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, p. 7. But as Dr. Smallwood notes, "[n]one of these suggestions are backed by evidence, and no effort has been made to actually look for special-status species on the site." Ex. B, p. 7. Dr. Page 1108 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 11 of 31 Smallwood refers to the IS/MND's discussion of the Crotch bumble bee as a prime example: In the case of the Crotch bumble bee, the IS/MND reports, "No bumble bee species were observed during the field survey." (There is only one species of Crotch bumble bee.) This reporting ignores the fact that Crotch bumble bees are unlikely to be out and about in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures range 96° to 99° F, as was reportedly the conditions during the one survey performed — a survey performed not by a wildlife ecologist or an entomologist, but by a botanist. The report of having not detected Crotch bumble bee was a meaningless report, and serves only to misrepresent how wildlife ecologists determine whether a species is present or likely absent from a site. Id., p. 7. As a result, the conclusion that the Project will not significantly impact the Crutch bumble bee and western yellow bat is not supported by substantial evidence and a fair argument exists that the Project may have significant impacts on the special- status species. Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys for multiple special- status species of wildlife be implemented to inform an EIR. Id., pp. 6, 22. Only with an accurate baseline could the IS/MND purport to assess the impacts on these special- status species. Fourth, in addition to these inadequate survey methods and unidentified baselines, the IS/MND and its BRA understate the range of animal species that are likely present on the Project site. While the IS/MND's BRA determines occurrence likelihood to be low for the western yellow bat and Crotch bumble bee, its determinations for all other species is unreported. IS/MND, App. B, pp. 8-9. The BRA refers the reader to Appendix D for determination of all species to be considered, but Appendix D is empty on the copy of the BRA report downloaded from City of Rancho Cucamonga's website. See id., p. 8 & Appendix D. Contrary to the IS/MND and BRA reports, Dr. Smallwood's review of eBird and iNaturalist identified no less than 60 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife and the Crotch bumble bee as having been seen very close to the project site, seen nearby, seen within the region, or whose geographic range overlaps the project site. Ex. B, pp. 7, 8-10 (Table 2) (listing species that Dr. Smallwood considers potentially occurring on the project site at one time or another or periodically). Ms. Smallwood also detected 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during her 108- minute site visit on September 4, 2021. See Ex. B, p. 3 (Table 1) (listing species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site). She saw Cooper's hawk and American kestrel (Photos 2 and 3, p. 3), California scrub-jays and American crows (Photos 4 and 5, p. 4), Say's phoebe and a great blue heron (Photos 6 and 7, p. 4), and side-blotched lizard and California ground squirrel (Photos 8 and 9, p. 5), among other species. Id., pp. 2-5. Based on Ms. Smallwood's observations, Dr. Smallwood writes: Page 1109 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 12 of 31 [Ms. Smallwood's] survey outcome indicates that the site of the proposed project continues to serve as valuable habitat to at least 24 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it likely serves as habitat to many more species. It also holds the potential to produce many new birds, mammals and reptiles for years to come. A fair argument can be made for the need to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife, and for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife Id., p. 2. Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood points out the significance of Ms. Smallwood's observance of California ground squirrels on the adjacent property across the street from the Project site. Dr. Smallwood states: Ms. Smallwood's detection of California ground squirrels on the open field across the street indicates that ground squirrels likely also occur on the project site. The occurrence of ground squirrels in the project area is significant because many special-status species are found in association with ground squirrels and their burrow complexes. Ground squirrels are prey of large raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk and Swainson's hawk. Ground squirrels are also prey of terrestrial carnivores such as American badger, which specialize on ground squirrels. Ground squirrels also construct subterranean habitat used by many species such as burrowing owl. The occurrence of ground squirrel warrants detection surveys for multiple special-status species that associate with this species. Id., p. 5. Moreover, "[b]ecause ground squirrels occur in the project area," Dr. Smallwood also recommends that "breeding-season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented (CDFW 2012)," but only "implemented prior to the circulation of an EIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts." Id. p. 22. Thus, given the close proximity of these special-status species, the IS/MND fails as a matter of law to analyze the impacts to these species and their habitat. In conclusion, the IS/MND's failure to adequately evaluate the significance of the impacts to special-status species of wildlife violates CEQA. Thus, the Project requires an EIR to properly mitigate wildlife impacts of the Project. ii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity. Neither the IS/MND nor the BRA assess the lost breeding capacity of birds that would result from the Project. See Ex. B, pp. 7, 11. In so doing, the IS/MND fails to analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity on bird species likely to nest on the ground and in trees within the BSA. Id., p. 7. While habitat loss Page 1110 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 13 of 31 results in the immediate numerical decline of birds and other animals, it also results in a permanent loss of productive capacity. Id. Dr. Smallwood cites a recent study that documented a "29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years," a decline which he says was "driven by multiple factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation." Id. (citing Rosenberg et al. 2019). Here, the IS/MND and BRA identify only mourning dove as a bird species likely to nest on the ground, and only house finch, northern mockingbird, and California scrub- jay as species likely to nest in trees in the area. IS/MND, p. 4-15; IS/MND, App. B, p. 9. In reality, however, Dr. Smallwood reports that "many more species of birds are capable of nesting on and around the project site," especially since a lot of bird species are considered ground-nesters. Ex. B, p. 7. Dr. Smallwood cites two studies that show bird nesting densities that were between 32.8 and 35.8 bird nests per acre, for an average of 34.3 bird nests per acre. Id. (citing Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), respectively). Assuming nesting density at the Project site is a fifth of the 34.3 average reported, then 6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied by the Project's 5.2 acres of habit, Dr. Smallwood predicts that 35 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. Id., p. 11. Based on an average of 2.9 fledglings per nest, the Project would prevent the production of 102 new birds per year. Id. (citing Young (1948)). Based on Dr. Smallwood's calculations, "[a]fter 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 11,600 birds." Id. (emphasis added). The potential loss of 11,600 birds in California over the first century following construction of this Project easily qualifies as a significant and substantial impact that has not been analyzed. An EIR is required to fully analyze the Project's impact on lost breeding capacity, and to mitigate that impact. Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project's impacts from habitat loss, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22. iii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential cumulative impacts on habitat fragmentation. The IS/MND does not assess the likelihood of cumulative impacts on wildlife, especially from habitat fragmentation in the vicinity. Ex. B, p. 11 . In addition to habit loss, habitat fragmentation, known as the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can also further diminish the productive capacity of the Project site. Id. (citing Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the Project site, which has led to a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area. Id. As a result, each of these patches of open space, including the Project's 5.2 acres, "is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species." Id. Because a fair argument exists that developing a currently undeveloped site that is likely suitable habitat for many species of wildlife will further fragment wildlife habitat in this area, there is a fair argument that the Project may contribute to habitat Page 1111 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 14 of 31 fragmentation. Thus, habitat fragmentation is a cumulative effect of this Project that should be analyzed in an EIR, and mitigated accordingly. See Ex. B, p. 22. iv. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife movement. The IS/MND fails to address impacts to wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor. See IS/MND, pp. 4-16-4-17; Ex. B, p. 11 . In doing so, the IS/MND improperly dismisses the Project's potential to significantly impact wildlife movement reasoning that the BSA "occurs within an industrial center of the Los Angeles Basin and does not occur within a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site," and "as a result, direct impacts to a regional wildlife movement corridor would not occur." IS/MND, App. B, pp. 10-11; Ex. B, p. 11. These conclusions rely on a false CEQA standard. Ex. B, p. 11. As Dr. Smallwood states, "[t]he primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor." Id.; see also CEQA Guidelines, App. G, pp. 333-34 (stating that the CEQA significance threshold is whether, among other things, a project will "[i]nterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species...."). Impacts to wildlife movement may occur with or without the presence of a wildlife corridor. Ex. B, p. 11. Dr. Smallwood writes: A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes one of the last of a diminishing suite of open space patches within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). Id., p. 11. Hence, the Project "would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging opportunities, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes." Id. Because the Project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region, Dr. Smallwood agrees that an EIR needs to be prepared to address the Project's impacts on wildlife movement in the region. Moreover, the Project site is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is one of four major North American migration routes for birds. While migratory birds travel the flyway on their annual north-south migration, they stopover at areas with suitable habitat and food supplies. As the IS/MND's BRA notes, many birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA") and California Fish and Game Code ("CFGC") §§ 3503-3503.5 "are likely to use the BSA for breeding, migratory stopovers, and local dispersal." IS/MND, App. B, p. 9 (emphasis added). However, no analysis of any direct impacts to wildlife movement, including birds' stop-over habitat, is included in the IS/MND and its appendix. Page 1112 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 15 of 31 Lastly, the IS/MND and BRA acknowledge that construction from the Project would have indirect impacts on wildlife movement, stating that the Project's "construction activities (i.e., increased noise, human presence, vibration) would likely result in wildlife avoidance of the area during the construction time frame." Id. at 11-12 (emphasis added). Such indirect and direct impacts could significantly affect wildlife movement, and should be addressed in an EIR and mitigated accordingly. Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project's impacts from interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22. v. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife by window collisions. Dr. Smallwood's report concludes that the Project will have significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. See Ex. B, pp. 12-18. But neither the IS/MND nor the BRA express any concern about bird-window collision impacts, nor do they propose any mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for such impacts to special- status species of bird. Id., p. 12. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to window collisions is especially important because "[w]indow collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality." Id. According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project's buildings, at 60 feet tall, would extend into much of the bird traffic observed by Ms. Smallwood at the Project site on September 4, 2021. Id. The IS/MND's rendering of the project shows facades composed of extensive structural glass, which Dr. Smallwood notes, "would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds." Id. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyaway, and Ms. Smallwood's observations at the time of her site visit further confirmed that birds fly through the Project's airspace, even during the nonmigratory season. Id. Based on Dr. Smallwood's review, at least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the Project area, see id. pp. 8-10 (Table 2), most of which "have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations." Id., p. 12 (citing Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Dr. Smallwood reviewed a number of studies in order to calculate the number of bird collisions that would occur annually as a result of the Project. Ex. B, p. 13. According to his calculations, each m2 of glass would result in an average of 0.073 bird deaths per year. Id. Dr. Smallwood then looked at the building design for the Project and estimated the Project would include at least 3,196 m2 of glass on its facades. Based on the estimated 3,196 m2 of glass on its façades and the 0.073 bird deaths per year, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project would result in at least 234 bird deaths Page 1113 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 16 of 31 per year. Id. Even more significant is the 100-year toll from this average annual fatality rate, which would be at least 23,363 bird deaths. Id. As Dr. Smallwood correctly points out, "[i]f the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 234 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts." Id. Considering the list of bird-window collision factors that Dr. Smallwood stressed should be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed Project, Ex. B, pp. 13-17, 22-23, he has suggested a number of mitigation measures. Id., pp. 17-18. As a starting point, before construction, [a]ny new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity." Id., p. 17. Dr. Smallwood explains: [Preconstruction] surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post- construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective. Id., p. 17. However, with regard to most of the known or suspected collision risk factors that Dr. Smallwood lists, he warns that "the proposed project's design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk." Id. Therefore, Dr. Smallwood suggests the following: Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight. Id. Dr. Smallwood also notes the importance of post-construction fatality monitoring, which he says "should be an essential feature of any new building project." Id. In addition, for mitigation measures involving the siting and design of the Project, Dr. Smallwood suggests: (1) retrofitting to reduce impacts by marking windows, managing outdoor landscape vegetation, managing indoor landscape vegetation, and managing nocturnal lighting; (2) siting and designing to minimize impacts by deciding on location of structure, deciding on façade and orientation, selecting type and sizes of windows, designing to minimize transparency through two parallel façades, designing to minimize views of interior plants, and landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs; and (3) monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts by systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns, and adjusting light management, window marking, and other measures as needed. Ex. Page 1114 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 17 of 31 B, pp. 17-18. Dr. Smallwood also recommends that the use of compensatory mitigation be incorporated at any new building project. Id., p. 23. Thus, because many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the Proposed project, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address and mitigate this potential impact. vi. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project. Dr. Smallwood identifies the serious impacts that increased traffic has on wildlife. Ex. B, pp. 18-20. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to vehicle collisions is especially important because "traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife," across North America. Id., p. 18 (citing Forman et al. 2003). In the United States alone, estimates for "avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year." Id. (citing Loss et al. 2014). As Dr. Smallwood explains: Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Increased use of existing roads will increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts will far exceed the impacts of land conversion to residential use for a warehouse. Id., pp. 18-19. Furthermore, a recent study conducted on traffic-caused wildlife mortality found "1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California." Id., p. 18 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Hence, as Dr. Smallwood points out, an analysis is needed to determine whether increased traffic generated by the Project would result in impacts to local wildlife. Id., p. 19. The IS/MND anticipates that the proposed Project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled, which translates to 5,979,430 annual vehicle miles traveled. IS/MND, pp. 4-9, 4-23; Ex. B, p. 18. The additional 16,382 daily miles traveled that is expected from the Project will undoubtedly result in collisions with wildlife. Ex. B, p. 19. As Dr. Smallwood explains, this additional 16,382 daily miles driven as a result of the Project is "a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating." Id. (citing Photos 10 and 11, Ex. B, pp. 19-20). However, "[d]espite the obvious risk to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the IS/MND does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the Project site." Ex. B, p. 19. Page 1115 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 18 of 31 To predict the road mortality of wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, Dr. Smallwood analyzed the data from the study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality in Contra Costa County. Id., p. 20 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). By inputting estimates of vehicle miles per wildlife fatalities calculated using the Contra Costa County study, i.e. 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality, Dr. Smallwood predicts: Based on the daily VMT predicted by the IS/MND, the project would generate 5,979,430 vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality, would predict 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 163,820 wildlife fatalities. Ex. B, p. 20. Based on Dr. Smallwood's assumptions and calculations, the traffic generated by the Project would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. Id. Dr. Smallwood also notes that "mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible," and therefore, "need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project." Id. Specifically, Dr. Smallwood suggests compensatory mitigation in the form of "funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures," and "donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities." Id., p. 23. Moreover, wildlife that will be run over by the Project's additional traffic may include special-status species of wildlife such as the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus). Although these two special-status species were not observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance field survey or Ms. Smallwood's site visit, the CNDDB search yielded occurrences for both the coast horned lizard and Los Angeles pocket mouse that overlapped with the Project's biological survey area. IS/MND, p. 4-14. Regardless of whether these special-status species appear on the Project site, they do cross roads over which traffic from the Project will travel. The IS/MND fails to recognize at all this potential significant impact of the Project. Because a fair argument exists that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife in the vicinity, an EIR must be prepared to assess this impact and identify appropriate mitigation. vii. The IS/MND fails to adequately address the Project's potential cumulative impacts on wildlife. The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts to wildlife from the Project by improperly implying that cumulative impacts are in reality only residual impacts as a result of incomplete mitigation from project-level impacts. Ex. B, p. 21. For example, the IS/MND states: Page 1116 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 19 of 31 As previously discussed, impacts related to the proposed Project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed Project's contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. IS/MND, p. 4-78. However, the IS/MND's implied standard is not the standard of cumulative effects required under CEQA. Ex. B, p. 21 . CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the required cumulative analysis. See 14 CCR § 15130; PRC § 21083(b)(2). According to Dr. Smallwood, cumulative effects for wildlife "can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity (Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale." Ex. B, p. 21 . Here, the IS/MND's cumulative "analysis" is based on flawed logic. The conclusion that the Project will have no cumulative impact because each individual impact has been reduced to a less-than-significant level relies on the exact argument CEQA's cumulative impact analysis is meant to protect against. The entire purpose of the cumulative impact analysis is to prevent the situation where mitigation occurs to address project-specific impacts, without looking at the bigger picture. This argument, applied over and over again, has resulted in major environmental damage, and is a major reason why CEQA was enacted. As the Court stated in CBE v. CRA: Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at 114 (citations omitted). Even if the IS/MND was applying the accurate CEQA standard, which would mean that the cumulative effects analysis would be nothing more than an analysis of mitigation efficiency, Dr. Smallwood points out "that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds." Ex. B, p. 21. Notwithstanding, the IS/MND misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR must be prepared to include an adequate, serious analysis of the Project's cumulative impacts on wildlife. viii. The pre-construction surveys identified in the IS/MND are not sufficient to address potential impacts to birds and bats that may be present at the site. Page 1117 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 20 of 31 Dr. Smallwood has reviewed the proposed wildlife impact mitigation identified in the IS/MND related to pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats (i.e. Mitigation Measure BIO-1). See IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, pp. 21-22. Although Dr. Smallwood agrees with the need for pre-construction surveys for birds and bats at the Project site, he notes that pre-construction surveys will come too late either to disclose the Project's anticipated impacts or to fully mitigate impacts to birds and bats. Ex. B, p. 21. As Dr. Smallwood explains: Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts, let alone to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; they are not even designed to assess impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys. Id., p. 21. By failing to determine the actual baseline of bird's and bat's reliance on the site for roosting, nesting, and foraging and instead waiting within seven days prior to the start of construction to determine what roosts, nests, birds, and bats may suffer impacts from the Project, the IS/MND fails to evaluate and mitigate the Project's potential significant impacts to nesting birds and bats. Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be implemented for the Project before pre-construction surveys are performed. Id., pp. 21-22. In addition to detection surveys and preconstruction surveys being performed, an EIR should be prepared detailing how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Id., p. 22. C. The IS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project's Air Quality Impacts. The IS/MND for the Project relies on emissions calculated from CalEEMod.2016.3.2. IS/MND, p. 4-8; Ex. C, pp. 1-2. This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a project's construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND, resulting in an underestimation of the Project's emissions. Ex. C, p. 2. Because the IS/MND uses incorrect estimates for emissions, its air quality analysis and GHG emissions analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project's emissions. The particular errors identified by SWAPE are discussed below. These errors should be Page 1118 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 21 of31 corrected in a subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project. SWAPE's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit C. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated reduction of land use size. Based on the IS/MND, the Project proposes to build "259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet." IS/MND, p. 1-13. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the correct number of residential units (i.e. 259 apartments), but the incorrect square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area (i.e. reduction of the default value of 259,000- to 228,000-SF). IS/MND, App. A, pp. 25, 29; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 23, 27; Ex. C, pp. 4-5. Further review of the model's output files indicates that the land use size was reduced from the CalEEMod default value without adequate explanation or justification. IS/MND, App. A, p. 29; IS/MND, App. F, p. 27; Ex. C, p. 5. The CalEEMod User's Guide requires that any changes to the default models be justified. Ex. C, p. 5 (citing CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, pp. 2, 9). According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "Site Plan; Project population." IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23. Given that the IS/MND states that the apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF, the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185- SF to 354,053-SF. Ex. C, p. 5. However, the IS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use, and therefore, the reduction to the default floor surface area is unsubstantiated. Id. This change also is not mentioned or justified in the IS/MND and associated appendices. SWAPE explains: This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model's calculations. The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts). Ex. C, p. 5 (citing CalEEMod User Guide, p. 28). By including an unsubstantiated reduction to the floor surface area of the Project's residential units, the model underestimates the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., p. 5. ii. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated reductions to architectural and area coating emission factors. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alt Cuvee Mixed- Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors. IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, pp. 5-6. The Page 1119 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 22 of 31 nonresidential exterior and interior architectural area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default 100 g/L to 50 g/L. IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, pp. 5-6. The explanation provided in the file is: "SCAQMD Building Envelope 50 g/L." IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24; Ex. C, p. 6. But neither the IS/MND nor the associated appendices mention or justify these changes. According to SWAPE, these changes are unsupported for two reasons: First, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the building envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113, whatsoever. Second, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only building envelope coatings during Project construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate. Ex. C, p. 6. Such unsubstantiated reductions cause an issue because the model uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project's reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound ("ROG/VOC") emissions. Id. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model could underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions. Id. Thus, the IS/MND's emissions for architectural and area coating should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. iii. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated reduction to gas fireplace values. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model demonstrates a reduction to gas fireplaces values were manually altered to include no gas fireplaces. IS/MND, App. A, p. 28; IS/MND, App. F, p. 26; Ex. C, pp. 6-7. Neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values. Ex. C, p. 6. However, the IS/MND indicates that the east building would include a courtyard with an outdoor fireplace, meaning that at least one fireplace would be installed on the Project site. IS/MND, p. 1-13; Ex. C, p. 7. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the number of gas fireplaces, the model could underestimate the Project's area-source operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Ex. C, p. 7. iv. The IS/MND relies on incorrect CO2 intensity factors. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the CO2 intensity factors for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" and "Alta Cuvee Bus Bay" were officially reduced from 702.44- to 531 .98- and 471 .24-pounds per megawatt hour ("lbs/MWhr"), respectively. IS/MND, App. A, pp. 30, 91; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 28, 87; Ex. C, p. 2. Page 1120 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 23 of 31 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justifications for these changes are: • Electricity supplied by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility, which is not available as input selection. SCE used as surrogate • SB 100 mandates 44% renewable by end of 2024. SCE CO2 factor assumes 40% renewables when operations begin. SCE 2019 power mix = 36% renewables IS/MND, App. A, pp. 26, 91; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 23, 86. These justifications are insufficient. Ex. C, p. 2. Based on SWAPE's review of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Content Label, the City's CO2 intensity factor is 630 lbs/MWhr, which means that the CO2 intensity factor is underestimated by approximately 98- and 159-lbs/MWhr, respectively. Id., pp. 2-3. Neither the IS/MND nor its associated appendices provide a citation or further justification for the updated carbon intensity factors. Such inconsistencies pose an issue because the model uses the CO2 intensity factor to calculate the Project's GHG emissions associated with electricity use. Id., p. 3. By including an underestimated carbon intensity factor, the models underestimate the Project's potential GHG emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id. v. The IS/MND fails to model all required parking. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates that the required parking is underestimated in the model. IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23; Ex. C, pp. 3-4. According to the IS/MND, the Project is pending approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the amount of required parking by 12%, from 526 to 465 spaces. IS/MND, p. 1-15, Table 1-2. However, this request is yet to be approved. Id., p. 1-15; Ex. C, p. 4. As SWAPE points out, "the model should have included the entire amount of required parking in order to conduct the most conservative analysis." Ex. C, p. 4. But review of the output files indicates that the Project's model only includes 465 parking spaces, rather than the 526 spaces required by the City. IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23; Ex. C, p. 4. Hence, the total amount of parking is underestimated by 61 spaces. Ex. C, p. 4. But this underestimation is incorrect since there is no way to verify whether the City will approve or deny the Project's requested parking exception. Id. As such, the potential underestimation affects CalEEMod calculations for the model's VOC emissions from architectural coatings and energy impacts. Id. By failing to include the entire amount of required parking spaces, the model underestimates the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id. Page 1121 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 24 of 31 vi. The IS/MND relies on incorrect solid waste generation rates. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates that the solid waste generation rates for that of the proposed Project were reduced in the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project's emissions. IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 7-8. The total solid waste generation rate was cumulatively decreased by 23.71 tons per year. Ex. C, p. 7. According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "Remove duplicate waste generation." IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24. But the IS/MND estimates that the proposed Project's "operational activities would generate approximately 1.6 tons per day of solid waste during Project operation." IS/MND, p. 4-73 & n.99. Based on the solid waste generation rate that the IS/MND uses, the Project's operational activities would generate approximately 584 tons per year of solid waste. Ex. C, p. 8. However, the model's output files indicate that its emissions estimates for the Project's total solid waste generation of 123.6 tons per year, which includes 119.6 tons per year for 259 mid-rise apartments, 0.46 tons per year of solid waste for 1 live-work unit (referred to as a condo/townhouse by the model), 0.03 tons per year of solid waste for outdoor amenity space (referred to as a city park), and 3.51 tons per year of solid waste for the commercial space (referred to as a strip mall). IS/MND, App. A, p. 85; IS/MND, App. F, p. 82; Ex. C, p. 8. As SWAPE points out, the model's solid waste is underestimated by 460.4 tons per year, and therefore, inconsistent with information included in the IS/MND. Ex. C, p. 8. Compared to the solid waste generation rate used by the IS/MND, the Project's model relies on solid waste generation rates that are grossly underestimated, and as a result, the model underestimates the Project's GHG emissions from operational activities. Id. Thus, the IS/MND's emissions for solid waste should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id. vii. The IS/MND relies on the use of underestimated operational vehicle fleet mix percentages. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates that the operational vehicle fleet mix percentages were underestimated within the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project's mobile-source operational emissions. IS/MND, App. A, pp. 28-29; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 26-27; Ex. C, pp. 9-10. According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justification for these changes is: "Residential Trips." IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, p. 9. However, neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values with substantial evidence. Ex. C, pp. 9-10. By including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, the model could underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., p. 10. Page 1122 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 25 of 31 viii. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated reductions to off-road equipment horsepower values. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates several reductions to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values. IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 10-11. According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justification for these changes is: "Project Inventory." IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24; Ex. C, p. 10. However, neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values with substantial evidence. Ex. C, p. 10. By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values, the model could underestimate the Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., pp. 10-11. ix. The IS/MND relies on the incorrect application of construction-related mitigation measures. Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model relies on an incorrect application of the construction mitigation measure of "Water Exposed Area." IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 11-12. No adequate justification is provided in the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table for the inclusion of this specific mitigation measure. Ex. C, p. 11 . Instead, the file mentions "SCAQMD Rule 403" as a "Construction Off-Road Equipment Mitigation." IS/MND, App. A, p. 24; IS/MND, App. F, p. 22; Ex. C, p. 11 . However, neither the IS/MND nor the appendices include these as formal mitigation measures, which means they are project design features making it impossible to guarantee whether the measures used in the model would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. See IS/MND, pp. 5-1-5-4; Ex. C, pp. 11-12. By the IS/MND using the construction-related mitigation measures in the model, it is artificially reducing its emissions measures. Ex. C, p. 12. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project's construction emissions and the mitigation cannot be relied upon. Id. Thus, the design features should be included as mitigation measures. Id., p. 25. x. The IS/MND relies on the incorrect application of operational mitigation measures. Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model also relies on an incorrect application of several operational mitigation measures related to energy (i.e. Exceed Title 24, Install High Efficiency Lighting, Install Energy Efficient Appliances), area (i.e. No Hearths Installed, Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies), and water (i.e. Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet, Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet, Use Water Efficient Irrigation System). IS/MND, App. A, pp. 72, 77, 79; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 70, 75, 77; Ex. C, pp. 12-14. The file provided no adequate justification for any of these operational mitigation measures used to reduce operational-related emissions as a result of the Page 1123 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 26 of 31 Project, but includes a justification in the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table for area-related operational mitigation measures, which is "SCAQMD Rule 1113." IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, p. 13. However, neither the IS/MND nor the appendices include these as formal mitigation measures, meaning they are considered project design features, which makes it impossible to guarantee whether the measures used in the model would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. See IS/MND, pp. 5-1-5-4; Ex. C, pp. 13-14. By the IS/MND using the operational-related mitigation measures in the model, it is artificially reducing its emissions measures. Ex. C, pp. 13-14. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and the mitigation cannot be relied upon. Id., p. 14. Thus, the design features should be included as mitigation measures. Id., p. 25. In conclusion, as a result of these errors in the IS/MND, the Project's construction-related and operational emissions were underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project's air quality impacts. D. An Updated Air Model Analysis Is Needed to Determine Whether the Project Will Have a Significant Air Quality Impact. Review of the IS/MND's air model analysis demonstrates that the IS/MND fails to provide summer and winter CalEEMod output files. Ex. C, pp. 14-15. To calculate the Project's air quality analysis, the IS/MND uses the CalEEMod.2016.3.2 to calculate construction-related and operational emissions. IS/MND, p. 4-8. According to SWAPE, the CalEEMod is required to provide three types of output files: annual, summer, and winter. Ex. C, p. 14 (citing CalEEMod User's Guide, p. 61). SWAPE further explains: As demonstrated above, the CalEEMod summer and winter output files provide peak daily emissions estimates in pounds per day ("lbs/day"). Furthermore, the IS/MND quantifies the Project's construction-related and operational maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions and compares them to the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Id., pp. 14-15 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-8, Table 4.3-1; 4-9, Table 4.3-2). However, SWAPE's review of the IS/MND's air quality assessment and GHG assessment demonstrates that the IS/MND failed to disclose the summer and winter CalEEMod output files. Ex. C, p. 15. Because the IS/MND fails to provide the summer and winter output files, the IS/MND's air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment, and properly disclose all CalEEMod output files. E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. Page 1124 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 27 of 31 One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter ("DPM"), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease. The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than- significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis ("HRA"). Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND justifies its "less-than-significant" health risk impact conclusion by stating that "low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment combined with the brevity of the construction period and local meteorological characteristics indicate that the proposed Project would not generate substantial emissions over an extended period of time that could cause a health risk to adjacent land uses." IS/MND, p. 4-11. Additionally, the IS/MND claims that "the size of the Project site indicates that only during a limited portion of construction activities would heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment be operating within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, and all construction equipment would be maintained in accordance with the CARB Portable Engine Air Toxics Control Measure and the Off-Road Diesel Regulation to control emissions to the maximum extent feasible." Id. In addition, with regard to potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the IS/MND's justification is that "[o]peration of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area," because the Project "would be consistent with existing surrounding land use developments," and "does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations." Id., p. 4- 12. According to the IS/MND this means that operation of the Project "would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations." Id. However, SWAPE's review of the IS/MND and its evaluation of potential health risk impacts for the Project found that the IS/MND incorrectly concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact on nearby receptors, and completely failed to conduct a quantified construction or operational HRA. Ex. C, pp. 15- 17. SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health impacts, as well as the less-than-significant health impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. Id. Page 1125 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 28 of 31 First, the IS/ND fails to quantitatively evaluate construction-related and operational toxic air contaminants ("TACs"), or make a reasonable effort to connect emissions to health impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors. Ex. C, p. 16. SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. Id. In failing to connect TAC emissions to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Ex. C, p. 16. See Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510. Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Ex. C, pp. 16-17. The IS/MND's conclusion is also inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment's ("OEHHA") most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015. See "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. Ex. C, p. 17. The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. Id. Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. Id. An EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts. Id. Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, SWAPE found that the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD's specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. Ex. C, p. 17. Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted. F. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact. Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. Ex. C., pp. 17-21 . SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 100 meters and Page 1126 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 29 of 31 analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. Id. SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately 100 meters away over the course of Project construction are approximately 27.1 in one million for infants and 23.7 in one million for children. Id., p. 20. Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of a Project operation of 30 years is approximately 60 in one million. Id. The risks to infants, children, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in one million. SWAPE's analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. A health risk assessment must be prepared disclosing the health risk impacts from toxic air contaminants. G. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions of 2,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year ("MT CO2E/year"), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. IS/MND, p. 4-31, Table 4.8-1. Furthermore, the IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan ("CAP") in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact. IS/MND, pp. 4-31-4-32. However, SWAPE concludes that the IS/MND's GHG analysis, as well as its subsequent less-than-significant conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. Ex. C, pp. 21-25. First, as SWAPE points out, the IS/MND's GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model, as discussed above. Id., pp. 21-22. As a result, GHG emissions are underestimated and the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Second, the IS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. SWAPE notes that when compared to the correct quantitative threshold, the Project's GHG impacts are demonstrably significant. Id., p. 22. Third, SWAPE's updated analysis indicates a potential significant impact in GHG emissions. Id., pp. 22-23. As such, SWAPE recommends, "an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines." Id., p. 23. Page 1127 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 30 of 31 Fourth, the IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying CARB's Scoping Plan. Ex. C, pp. 23-24. Based on SWAPE's quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards, SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND's GHG significance determination regarding the Project's consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Id., p. 24. Fifth, the IS/MND also fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying SCAG's RTP/SCS. Id., pp. 24-25. SWAPE's quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards concludes that the IS/MND's GHG significance determination concerning the Project's consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Id., p. 25. SWAPE's analysis demonstrated a potentially significant health risk impact from the project that necessitates mitigation, and it proposes that the project design features that are incorrectly applied as mitigation measures by the model be implemented formally as mitigation measures in order to adequately reduce construction and operational emissions. In addition to implementing these measures, an EIR should be included with updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analysis. H. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact. Review of the proposed Project and relevant appendices regarding the Project's noise impacts from construction activities provides substantial evidence that the IS/MND improperly analyzed construction noise levels and failed to adequately mitigate significant construction noise impacts. Based on the noise levels presented in the IS/MND, "the equipment is expected to generate noise levels ranging from approximately 70.3 dBA to 82.6 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet." IS/MND, p. 4-46— 4-47. The IS/MND notes that "construction noise levels would exceed the residential and commercial construction noise standards at the majority of nearby sensitive receptors," and as result, impacts related to on-site construction noise would be significant without mitigation. Id. at 4-47. Although the IS/MND concludes that mitigation measures included in the IS/MD will place noise impacts under significant thresholds, substantial evidence exists in the IS/MND and related appendix that demonstrates there still could be significant noise impacts despite the IS/MND's noise mitigation measures. As the court in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency stated, the application of an established regulatory standard cannot be applied in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect. Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114. The court in Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara also held that an EIR is required if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have significant unmitigated noise Page 1128 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 31 of31 impacts, even if other evidence shows that the project will not generate noise in excess of a noise ordinance. See Keep Out Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 732. Thus, an EIR to analyze potentially unmitigated noise impacts is required. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should be prepared, and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Victoria Ann Yundt LOZEAU DRURY LLP Page 1129 Exhibit A H E E INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING H E E 1448 Pine Street,Suite 103 San Francisco,California 94109 Telephone:(415)567-7700 E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com Date: September 24, 2021 To: Victoria A. Yundt Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4499) Pages: 19 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high- performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain Page 1131 and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a),No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015). Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 Kg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 2 of 19 Page 1132 particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold(OEHHA, 2017a). With respect to the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces. 3 of 19 Page 1133 The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction. Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million). The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) 4 of 19 Page 1134 Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day. Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day. This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("EIR"), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARE Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's CEQA review 5 of 19 Page 1135 and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded. 1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, 6 of 19 Page 1136 adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea- formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard,particleboard). 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSIBIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined 7 of 19 Page 1137 from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area- specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. Cin= EtotalQoa (Equation 1) where: C;,,= indoor formaldehyde concentration(µg/m3) Etota1=total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. 8 of 19 Page 1138 Qoa=design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health"Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017). 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include: 1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone. NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as 9 of 19 Page 1139 mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. Further, we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre- Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. 10 of 19 Page 1140 The Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.), and thus the Project site is likely a sound impacted site. According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021) the existing ambient noise levels in Table 4.13-1, range from 52.5 to 70.8 dBA Leg. There were no modeled future noise levels in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021). An acoustic study of the existing and projected future noise levels needs to be conducted to understand the ambient noise levels, Lam,, and prepare the necessary project mitigation. We note that Project's close proximity to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.)make this Project site a significantly sound impacted site. As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM25. According to the Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021) the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 11 of 19 Page 1141 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM25 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder"speculate" on what and how 12 of 19 Page 1142 much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2_5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. 13 of 19 Page 1143 References AECOM. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. 14 of 19 Page 1144 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 — Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. Mcllvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf 15 of 19 Page 1145 Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX. Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air- quality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4 16 of 19 Page 1146 APPENDIX A INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS AND THE CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California". In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality", but rather "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products". Just how much protection do the CARE ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality" when CARE Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Another way of looking at how much protection the CARE ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 17 of 19 Page 1147 Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard(MDF)— 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board—30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or Hardwood Plywood—54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or Thin MDF—46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area). For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard(MDF)—3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board—7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood— 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF— 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms) Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, 18 of 19 Page 1148 could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF)resins. 19 of 19 Page 1149 Exhibit B Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Vincent Acuna, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91 26 September 2021 RE: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Dear Mr.Acuna, I write to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021), specifically on its analysis of potential impacts to biological resources. I understand the project would consist of a 260-unit apartment community composed of two 6o-foot-tall buildings and 3,339 square feet of commercial floorspace on 5.2 acres at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard. The IS/MND is deficient in its characterization of the environmental setting and by not analyzing impacts to special-status species caused by habitat loss, interference with movement in the region,bird-window collisions, wildlife- automobile collisions, and it is deficient in its mitigation plan. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I study wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society—Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation. I was a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology's premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-six years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached. SITE VISIT Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master's Degree from California State University Los Angeles,visited the site of the proposed project on my behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 (Photo 1). She walked the site's perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with the use of binoculars. The sky was clear with no wind, and temperatures ranged 64-72° F. 1 Page 1151 Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported. 4942'W— Noriko Smallwood mac.'.�3.,raz•-" �,�^ _- £ - Photos 1. Site of proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 4 September 2021. Ms. Smallwood detected 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during her io8 minutes at the site (Table 1). She saw Cooper's hawk and American kestrel (Photos 2 and 3), California scrub jays and American crows (Photos 4 and 5), Say's phoebe and a great blue heron (Photos 6 and 7), and side-blotched lizard and California ground squirrel (Photos 8 and 9), among other species. Noriko's detections of 24 species of vertebrate wildlife need to be interpreted within the context of her survey effort. No matter who performs the survey, the results of a single survey qualify as a thin empirical foundation for characterizing the environmental setting of any given site, including one proposed for a project. A single survey can serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site's wildlife community. Noriko had only <2 hours available to perform a visual scan survey on 4 September 2021, so there were only so many species she was likely to detect. Noriko could have detected many more species than she did had she also performed surveys at different times of day to detect diurnal, nocturnal and crepuscular species, or surveys in different seasons and years to detect migrants and species with multi-annual cycles of abundance, or surveys of different methods such as se of acoustic detectors or thermal-imaging for bats, owls, and nocturnally migratory birds, and live-trapping for small mammals. Noriko survey outcome indicates that the site of the proposed project continues to serve as valuable habitat to at least 24 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it likely serves as habitat to many more species. It also holds the potential to produce many new birds, mammals and reptiles for years to come. A fair argument can be made for the need to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife, and for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife. 2 Page 1152 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed from o6:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site. Species _ Scientific name Status Great blue heron Ardea herodius Gull Laridae Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis Say's phoebe Sayornis saya Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Common raven Corvus corax American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Bushtit Psaltiparus minimus _ House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana • Ping Photos 2 and 3. Cooper's hawk(left)and American kestrel(right) at the site of the All proposed project, 4 September 2021. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 3 Page 1153 inn • 1, Photo 4 and 5. California scrub jay (left) and American crow (right) at the project site, 4 September 2021. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. INIM=.141 Photos 6 and 7. Says phoebe (left) and great blue heron (right) at the project site. Photos by Noriko Smallwood, 4 September 2021. 4 Page 1154 at Ire f. �► !r r~ �i f , i .r • << ,4 .� .: . Y . g4f4:1;k ii, '' - ' -. \fil' fu ` wpA �'W �: //hM1 �, q ti %*-- -jam s ' • E� . L Photos 8 and 9. Side-blotched - lizard at the project site and a ground squirrel across the street, 4 1 . k : September 2021. Photos by Noriko l;. . i? Smallwood. }} f' • f / JjV- 1 . : _. Ms. Smallwood's detection of California ground squirrels on the open field across the street indicates that ground squirrels likely also occur on the project site. The occurrence of ground squirrels in the project area is significant because many special- status species are found in association with ground squirrels and their burrow complexes. Ground squirrels are prey of large raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk and Swainson's hawk. Ground squirrels are also prey of terrestrial carnivores such as American badger, which specialize on ground squirrels. Ground squirrels also construct subterranean habitat used by many species such as burrowing owl. The occurrence of ground squirrel warrants detection surveys for multiple special- status species that associate with this species. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT The IS/MND refers to a reconnaissance field survey Performed by AECOM (2021) on 24 September 2020. A botanist visited the site for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon (14:0o to 15:30 hours)when wildlife were least likely to be detected. In fact, temperatures were reportedly 96° to 99° F, which was just too hot for a wildlife survey. The IS/MND (page 4-14) reports, "no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey,"but this report follows from a survey of insufficient effort at the most inappropriate time of day. Given the minimal effort at the worst time of day, there should be no surprise that special-status species were undetected. I further note that nothing is reported of AECOM's (2021) wildlife survey; that is,the IS/MND fails to report which, if any, species of wildlife were detected by the botanist who was sent to do the job. This lack of reporting suggests to me that the botanist likely saw no wildlife in the heat of the middle of the afternoon. 5 Page 1155 The IS/MND misuses the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). According to the IS/MND, "the CNDDB records of these four species had non-specific locations which were not mapped precisely to the locations where the species were observed and each individual observation is a square mile or greater in size; so it is not known whether the observation was actually made precisely within the biological survey area." In fact, CNDDB records are mapped accurately, but exact locations are often not shared publicly as a means to protect the species. CNDDB records are intended to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of a special-status species in the project area,but not the species' exact locations. Nor is CNDDB intended to support determinations of species' absence, as the IS/MND implies. CNDDB is intended to flag the occurrences of species in the area, not to provide an exact accounting of where the species is located at the moment. The IS/MND further misrepresents CNDDB by implying that older records are dismissible. According to the IS/MND, "...CNDDB records that overlap with the biological survey area are 19 years old or more and since that time, the area has been developed substantially.As a result, it is possible many locations no longer exist. Current site conditions do not provide suitable habitat for these species and none are known to occur or expected to occur within the Project site or vicinity." CNDDB does not imply that species are static, or that locations where they were mapped previously are the only locations where the species would be found later. Wildlife populations are spatially dynamic, shifting centers of activity every generation or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979), so it would be inappropriate of CNDDB to assert that locations of past occupancy should still be locations of current occupancy. For this reason, users of CNDDB typically determine whether CNDDB records exist within a 5-mile radius of a proposed project. Occurrences within 5 miles serve as indicators that the species could also occur at the project site, and if so, then protocol-level detection surveys should be performed. The IS/MND asserts, "the BSA generally does not provide suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species."This assertion,however, lacks evidence in the form of detection survey results. Detection surveys are designed by species' experts to —at reasonable cost —provide the best chance for detecting the targeted species by applying the methods and survey effort most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present. The objectives of detection surveys are to (1) support negative findings of species when appropriate, (2) inform preconstruction surveys to improve their efficacy, (3) estimate project impacts, and(4) inform compensatory mitigation and other forms of mitigation. The botanist who surveyed the project site for 90 minutes in the middle of the hot afternoon did not come anywhere close to having performed a detection survey for any species of wildlife. Neither AECOM nor City of Rancho Cucamonga was justified by asserting that the site lacks special-status species of wildlife. Detection surveys for multiple special-status species of wildlife should be implemented to inform an EIR. Without such surveys, the IS/MND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. The IS/MND repeatedly speculates that for this or that species, anthropogenic disturbances prevent their occurrences. The IS/MND exemplifies one such disturbance as routine mowing of the site. The IS/MND 6 Page 1156 offers no evidence in defense of its premise that routine mowing precludes special- status species of wildlife. It fails to identify the Crotch bumble bee host plants that allegedly occur in low density, and it fails to make the case that the host plants in question are the only plants useable by Crotch bumble bee. The IS/MND relies on generalities rather than specifics, and on speculation rather than evidence. It suggests that house cats killed off the special-status species, and that traffic noise drove them away, and that insect prey are in low supply. None of these suggestions are backed by evidence, and no effort has been made to actually look for special-status species on the site. An example follows. In the case of the Crotch bumble bee, the IS/MND reports, "No bumble bee species were observed during the field survey." (There is only one species of Crotch bumble bee.) This reporting ignores the fact that Crotch bumble bees are unlikely to be out and about in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures range 96°to 99° F, as was reportedly the conditions during the one survey performed— a survey performed not by a wildlife ecologist or an entomologist,but by a botanist. The report of having not detected Crotch bumble bee was a meaningless report, and serves only to misrepresent how wildlife ecologists determine whether a species is present or likely absent from a site. My review of eBird and iNaturalist identified 6o special-status species of vertebrate wildlife and the Crotch's bumble bee as having been seen very close to the project site, seen nearby, seen within the region, or whose geographic range overlaps the project site (Table 2). I consider all of these species in Table 2 as potentially occurring on the project site at one time or another or periodically. AECOM (2o2i) determines occurrence likelihood to be low for western yellow bat and Crotch bumble bee, but its determinations for all other species is unreported. AECOM (2o2i) refers the reader to Appendix D for determinations of all species considered,but Appendix D is empty on the copy of AECOM's report I downloaded from City of Rancho Cucamonga's web site. Habitat Loss The IS/MND identifies only mourning dove as a bird species likely to nest on the ground. It lists only house finch, northern mockingbird and California scrub-jay as species likely to nest trees in the area. In reality, many more species of birds are capable of nesting on and around the project site. Many bird species are ground-nesters. The IS/MND does not analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity. A recent study documented a 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years — a decline driven by multiple factors,but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife,but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. For example, a grassland/wetland/woodland complex at one study site had a total bird nesting density of 32.8 nests per acre (Young 1948). In another study on a similar complex of vegetation cover, the average annual nest density was 35.8 nests per acre (Yahner 1982). These densities averaged 34.3 nests per acre, indicative of a very large productive capacity of North American birds,but also indicative of a very large source of lost capacity should habitat be taken for human uses. 7 Page 1157 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of vertebrate wildlife as determined by the IS/MND and by publicly available data bases such as eBird(https://eBird.org)and iNaturalist, where 'very close'indicates within a mile, `nearby'indicates within a few miles, and 'in region'indicates within to to 3o miles of the project site. Occurrence likelihood Common name Species name Status1 IS/MND Data bases Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby California gull Larus californicus WL Very close Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Nearby Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP Nearby White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP Nearby Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP Nearby American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE, CFP, BOP Nearby Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby Burrowing owl Bubo virginianus BCC, SSC2, BOP Nearby Great-horned owl Athene cunicularia SSC2, BOP Nearby Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii BOP In region Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby Lewis's woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region v Nuttall's woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby m Costa's hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby Allen's hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close co Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby 8 Occurrence likelihood Common name Species name Status' IS/MND Data bases Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus BCC In region Horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Nearby California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC In region Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii CE, BCC Nearby Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 Nearby Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Very close Least Bell's vireo Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Nearby Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Nearby Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC,WL In region Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSCi In region Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 In region Lawrence's goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby Blainville's horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Nearby Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC,WBWG H In range Townsend's western big-eared bat Plecotus t. townsendii SSC, WBWG H In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG H Low In range Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG M In range Miller's myotis Myotis evotis WBWG M In region m Fringed myotis ' Myotis thysanodes WBWG H In region f. Long-legged myotis Myotis Volans WBWG H In range Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SSC,WBWG LM In region 9 Occurrence likelihood Common name Species name Status' IS/MND Data bases Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG LM In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii CE Low Nearby 1 Listed as FT and FE = federal threatened and endangered, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT and CE = California threatened and endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFW Code 3511), BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSCi, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively(Shuford and Gardali 2008),WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group listing as moderate or high priority. v CD CD 0 10 Assuming nesting density at the project site is a fifth of the average reported by Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), then 6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied against the project's 5.2 acres would predict that 35 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young's (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young's (1948) study site typifies bird productivity,the project would prevent the production of 102 fledglings per year. After 10o years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years,the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 11,60o birds {(nests/year x chicks/nest x number of years) + (2 adults/nest x nests/year) x (number of years = years/generation)}. The project's denial to California of 11,600 birds over the first century following construction would easily qualify as a significant and substantial impact. This impact has not been addressed by City of Cucamonga. If the City believes my assumed nesting density is inaccurate,then I suggest inserting another density value that is better founded,but I also predict that the productive capacity estimate would be little different from my own. The impact of habitat loss would be significant. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project's impacts from habitat loss. Habitat fragmentation, which is the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can further diminish the productive capacity of a site (Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the project site, leaving a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area, each of which is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation is one of the cumulative effects of this project that needs to be analyzed in an EIR. Wildlife Movement The IS/MND dismisses potential impacts to wildlife movement by concluding that development around the project site precludes its use as part of a wildlife movement corridor. The premise of this conclusion must be that the presence of a wildlife corridor determines whether a project would significantly interfere with wildlife movement in the region. However, this premise represents a false CEQA standard. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes one of the last of a diminishing suite of open space patches within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging opportunities, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes. The project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. An EIR needs to be prepared to address the project's impacts on wildlife movement in the region. 11 Page 1161 BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY At 6o feet tall,the project's buildings would extend into much of the bird traffic Ms. Smallwood observed at the project site. The IS/MND's rendering of the project shows facades composed of extensive structural glass, which has been the recent trend.l The project would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem's (1990) and Dunn's (1993) estimates of about 10o million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.'s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.'s (2013) and Machtans et al.'s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. However, these estimates were likely biased too low,because they were based on opportunistic sampling,volunteer study participation, fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers, and usually no adjustments made for scavenger removals of carcasses before searchers could detect them (Bracey et al. 2016). Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway. Noriko Smallwood's observations during her visit to the site confirmed that birds fly through the airspace of the project, even during the nonmigratory season. At least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2). According to the scientific literature, most of the special-status species in Table 2 have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Many more species of migratory birds, newly protected by California's revised Fish and Game Code section 3513, have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020). Nowhere in the IS/MND is there any concern expressed for bird-window collision impacts, nor is there any mitigation proposed to avoid, minimize or compensate for such impacts. As I will show in the next section, many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the proposed project. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address this potential impact. 'Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of glass windows on building façades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a worldwide 20%increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016. Glass markets in the USA experienced 5% growth in both 2011 and 2016, and was forecast to grow 2.3%per year since 2016 (TMCapital 2019). Increasing window to wall ratios and glass façades have become popular for multiple reasons,including a growing demand for`daylighting.' 12 Page 1162 Project Impact Prediction Predicting the impacts caused by loss of aerial habitat and the energetic costs of birds having to navigate around the buildings is possible,but I am unprepared to make such predictions. However, I am prepared to predict bird-window collision mortality. By the time of these comments I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O'Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Penuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, , City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year(95% CI: 0.042-0.102). Based on a renderin of a building in the IS/MND, I estimated the proposed project would include at least 3,196 m2 of glass on its facades. This extent of glass applied to the mean fatality rate would predict at least 234 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 139-329). The 1oo-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be at least 23,363 bird deaths (95% CI: 13,871-32,855). These estimates would be perhaps 3 times higher after accounting for the proportions of fatalities removed by scavengers or missed by fatality searchers where studies have been performed. Collision fatalities would continue until the buildings are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down. If the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 234 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts. Bird-Window Collision Factors Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature, and which I suggest ought to be used to draft Bird-Safe Guidelines for City of Rancho Cucamonga and which ought to be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed project. Following this list are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience. (1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other flights (2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor plants (3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace (4) Black hole or passage effect (5) Window or façade extent, or proportion of façade consisting of window or other reflective surface (6) Size of window (7) Type of glass (8) Lighting,which is correlated with window extent and building operations (9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground) (10) Orientation of façade with respect to winds and solar exposure (11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment 13 Page 1163 (12) Context in terms of urban-rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious surface vs vegetation (13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building (14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants (15) Relative abundance (16) Season of the year (17) Ecology, demography and behavior (18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack (19) Aggressive social interactions (1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace.—Not all of a structure's collision risk can be attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and Klem et al. (2009) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows, although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although mortality would increase with larger expanses of glass. (2)Window transparency.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior vegetation. (3) Window reflectance.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace, vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem et al. (2009) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation associated positively with collisions. (4) Black hole or passage effect.—Although this factor was not often mentioned in the bird-window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites. The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of both of these factors. It might play a significant role in the proposed project,which includes extruded window frames of many windows. (5) Window or facade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al. (2013), Ocampo-Penuela et al. (2016), Loss et al. (2019), Rebolo-Ifran et al. (2019), and Riding et al. (2020) reported increased collision fatalities at buildings with larger 14 Page 1164 reflective façades or higher proportions of façades composed of windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and proportion of facade that was glazed. (6) Size of window.—According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on large-pane windows compared to small-pane windows. (7)Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise,little attention has been directed towards the types of glass in buildings. (8) Lighting.—Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated positively with percent glass on the façade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an 8o% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights-out Program. However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building. (9) Height of structure.—Except for Riding et al. (2020), I found little if any hypothesis- testing related to building height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller buildings? Some of the most notorious buildings are low-rise buildings. (io) Orientation of façade.—Some studies tested façade orientation,but not convincingly. Some evidence that orientation affects collision rates was provided by Winton et al. (2018). Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some portion of it could be attributed to orientation of façade. Whether certain orientations cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic-appearing reflections ought to be testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under façades of different orientations would help. (11) Structural layout.—Bird-safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of structural layouts associated with high rates of bird-window collisions, but little attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision rates at 3 stories of glassed-in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington State University. (12) Context in urban-rural gradient.—Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016). (13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building.—Correlations have sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation near windows (Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016, Ocampo- 15 Page 1165 Pamela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass facade, then birds coming from that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the facade to result in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 3o to 50 m away, and birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at the windows. (14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P < 0.001)between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold. (15) Relative abundance.—Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings. (16) Season of the year.—Borden et al. (2010) found 90% of collision fatalities during spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words, the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying seasonally-explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions into the glass facades of the project's building would likely be concentrated in fall and spring migration periods. (17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds were not found as common window-caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al. (2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible to collision than resident birds. (18) Predatory attacks.—Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of window strike reports in Dunn's (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper's hawks chasing birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide with the project's windows would include Peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk. (19)Aggressive social interactions.—I found no hypothesis-testing of the roles of aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have 16 Page 1166 witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the birds hitting a window. For most of the known or suspected collision risk factors,the proposed project's design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk. Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight. Window Collision Solutions Given the magnitude of bird-window collision impacts, there are obviously great opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts. However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post-construction fatality monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project. Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the literature. Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more facades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction,because post-construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective. (i)Retrofitting to reduce impacts (1A) Marking windows (1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation (iC) Managing indoor landscape vegetation (iD) Managing nocturnal lighting (1A) Marking windows.—Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peiiuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings — the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film.At the building with fritted glass,bird collisions were 82%lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed facades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland 17 Page 1167 Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94%by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland's Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rossler et al. 2015). Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my windows during the 10 years hence. In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations. (2)Siting and Designing to minimize impacts (2A) Deciding on location of structure (2B) Deciding on facade and orientation (2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows (2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel facades (2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants (2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs (3)Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts (3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns (3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed. TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE According to the IS/MND (page 45), the project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled. This VMT prediction provides a basis for predicting one of the most important potential project impacts to wildlife. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal,bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 10o km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 10o km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local or regional impacts can be more intense than at the national level. In a recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, investigators found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals,birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Using carcass detection trials performed on land immediately adjacent to the traffic mortality study(Brown et al. 2016)to adjust the found fatalities for the proportion of fatalities not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error, the estimated traffic-caused fatalities was 12,187. This fatality estimate translates to a rate 18 Page 1168 of 3,90o wild animals per mile per year killed. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,74o animals killed per loo km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.'s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife. Increased use of existing roads would increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2oo1). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts would far exceed the impacts of land conversion to use for a warehouse. Wildlife roadkill is not randomly distributed, and so it can be predicted. Causal factors include types of roadway,human population density, and temperature (Chen and Wu 2014), as well as time of day and adjacency and extent of vegetation cover (Chen and Wu 2014, Bartonicka et al. 2018), and intersections with streams and riparian vegetation (Bartonicka et al. 2018). For example, species of mammalian Carnivora are killed by vehicle traffic within o.i miles of stream crossings >4o times other than expected (K. S. Smallwood, 1989-2018 unpublished data). Reptiles are killed on roads where roadside fences end or where fences are damaged (Markle et al. 2o17). There has even been a function developed to predict the number of golden eagles killed along the road, where the function includes traffic volume and density of road-killed animals available for eagles to scavenge upon (Lonsdorf et al. 2018). These factors also point the way toward mitigation measures, which should be formulated in an EIR. Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The IS/MND predicts the project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled. This prediction translates to 5,979,43o annual vehicle miles traveled. This is a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating (Photos io and ii). Despite the obvious risk to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the IS/MND does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Photo 10. A Gambel's quail dashes across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. I. 19 Page 1169 Photo 1i- A mourning dove killed by vehicle traffic on a California road. Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 • June 2020. f. • • For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,90o animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice,but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks,American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red- legged frogs,but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards,but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of wildlife fatalities was 19,50o cars and trucks x 2.5 miles x 365 days/year x 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. Based on the daily VMT predicted by the IS/MND, the project would generate 5,979,430 vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality,would predict 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 5o years would accumulate 163,82o wildlife fatalities. It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts. The Project's toll on wildlife could be even higher than I predict. The IS/MND does not address this impact in the least. Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze this impact. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. 20 Page 1170 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The IS/MND implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. It states, "As previously discussed, impacts related to the proposed Project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed Project's contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable." If the IS/MND accurately represented CEQA's standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. And if that was the standard, then I must point out that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds. But the IS/MND's implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis. The IS/MND has misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR needs to be prepared, and it needs to include an appropriate, serious analysis of cumulative impacts. When it comes to wildlife, cumulative effects can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity(Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale. In the case of migrating birds,the project's cumulative effects could be measured as numerical reductions of breeding birds at far-off breeding sites as migrating adults and next-year's recruits lose access to stop-over habitat. In the cases of wildlife species that are susceptible to traffic collisions,the project's contribution to ongoing and foreseeable traffic-caused mortality can be measured or predicted. Even crude predictions of cumulative impacts are imperative. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address the project's potential contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife in the region. MITIGATION BIO-i: Preconstruction survey for breeding birds The IS/MND proposes preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats. Preconstruction surveys should be performed, but not as substitute for detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts,let alone to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; they are not even designed to assess impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special- status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys. Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them. Detection surveys were designed by species 21 Page 1171 experts, often undergoing considerable deliberation and review before adoption. Detection surveys often require repeated efforts using methods known to maximize likelihoods of detection. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures,because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either. What is missing from the IS/MND, and what is in greater need than preconstruction surveys, are detection surveys consistent with guidelines and protocols that wildlife ecologists have uniquely developed for use with each special-status species. What is also missing is compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts. Following detection surveys, preconstruction surveys should be performed. However, an EIR should be prepared, and it should detail how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Without reporting the results, preconstruction surveys are vulnerable to serving as an empty gesture rather than a mitigation measure. For these reasons, this mitigation measure is insufficient to reduce the project's impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. RECOMMENDED MEASURES Detection Surveys Detection surveys are needed for each of the special-status species in Table 2. Detection surveys are needed for nesting birds and for bats. For bats, I recommend deployment of acoustic detectors and use of thermal-imaging. For birds, I recommend a rigorous nest survey in the absence of an impending construction schedule, including the mapping of nest sites of each species. Because ground squirrels occur in the project area,breeding- season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented (CDFW 2oi2), but they should be implemented prior to the circulation of an EIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts. Habitat Loss and Wildlife Movement The IS/MND provides no mitigation for adverse impacts from habitat loss or to regional movement of wildlife. At a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the project's impacts from habitat loss and interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. The proposed project site composes one of the last patches of open space available to birds and bats on long-distance dispersal or migration flights. Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions If the project goes forward, it should adhere to the available guidelines prepared by American Bird Conservancy and the Cities of New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy(ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines that recommend actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns,window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off 22 Page 1172 lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society(Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department's (2011)building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess efficacy and to quantify post- construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. Road Mortality Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that will be caused by the project's contribution to increased road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below). Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the injuries will likely be caused by the increased trip generation of cars and trucks. Many animals need treatment caused by collision injuries and an increasing number appear to be injured by the turbulence of passing trucks. Thank you for your attention, Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. REFERENCES CITED AECOM. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project,Appendix B: Biological Resources Assessment. Report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. 23 Page 1173 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/1o.1371/journal.pone.o178667 Bartonicka, T., R.Andrasik, M. Dula, J. Sedonik, and M. Bil. 2018. Identification of local factors causing clustering of animal-vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management. Journal of Wildlife Management DOI: 10.1oo2/jwmg.21467 Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias 92(i): e2o18o745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745• Bishop, C.A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/1o.5751/ACE-00604-080202. Borden,W. C., O. M. Lockhart,A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52• Bracey,A. M., M.A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367. Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/1o.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. CDFW(California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. Calvert,A. M., C.A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E.A. Krebs,T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/1o.5751/ACE-oo581-080211 Chen, X. and S. Wu. 2014. Examining patterns of animal—vehicle collisions in Alabama, USA. Human-Wildlife Interactions 8:235-244. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon. 24 Page 1174 City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. Prepared by AECOM for CRP/WP Alta Cuvee Venture, LLC. Rancho Cucamonga, California. Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species: urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1-20. DOI 10.1007/s11252-015-0459-3. Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bisonette,A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. Gelb,Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470. Gomez-Moreno,V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Nino-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitologia 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/1o.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347 Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2:e46o DOI 10.7717/peerJ.46o. Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 12o:550-564. Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:203-211. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371• doi:1o.1371/journal.pone.o053371 Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e1446o0 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. 25 Page 1175 Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 12i:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report. Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406-411. Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz,Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009.Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134. Kobylarz, B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10-15. Kummer J.A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window collisions at residential houses.Avian Conservation and Ecology lo(2):6 DOI 10.5751/ACE-00787-100206. Kummer, J.A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to identify factors affecting bird-window collision risk at houses. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-16-26.1 Lonsdorf, E. C.A. Sanders-Reed, C. Boal, and T. D.Allison. 2018. Modeling golden eagle-vehicle collisions to design mitigation strategies. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1633-i644. Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771. Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird—building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.165o/CONDOR-13-o90.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles,A. W.Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North 26 Page 1176 American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): eo224164. https://doi.org/io.1371/journal. pone.o224164 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows.Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/1o.5751/ACE-oo568-080206 Markle, C. E., S. D. Gillingwater, R. Levick, P. Chow-Fraser. 2017. The true cost of partial fencing: evaluating strategies to reduce reptile road mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:342-350. Mendelsohn, M.,W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California. Ocampo-Penuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI1o.7717/peerj.1652 O'Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149. Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679. Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird—building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94. Porter,A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Rebolo-Ifran, N.,A. di Virgilio, and S.A. Lambertucci. 2019. Drivers of bird-window collisions in southern South America: a two-scale assessment applying citizen science. Scientific Reports 9:18148 I https://doi.org/1o.1o38/s41598-019-54351-3 Riding, C. S., T. J. O'Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird—window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1-14. Rossler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535-541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 27 Page 1177 Rosenberg, K.V.,A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher,J. R. Sauer,A. C. Smith, P.A. Smith,J. C. Stanton,A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019). Runge, C.A.,T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R.A. Fuller. 2014. Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395-402, doi:10.1890/130237. Sabo,A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer,A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e217o; DOI 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018. Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/1o.7717/ peerJ.4562 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, end Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains,Virginia. Shuford,W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H.A. Mathewson, Eds.,Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1-19. Taylor, R.A. J., and L. R. Taylor. 1979. A behavioral model for the evolution of spatial dynamics. Pp. 1-28 in R. M.Anderson, B. D. Turner, and L. R. Taylor (editors). Population dynamics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. Taylor, P. D., S.A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber,A. M. Calvert,A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054• doi:1o.1371/j ournal.pone.0027054 28 Page 1178 TMCapital. 2019. 2019 Building products report: enduring growth beyond short-term challenges. https://www.tmcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2o19/08/ BuildingProd AnnualReport 2019-o8-14.pdf Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626. Winton, R. S., N. Ocampo-Penuela, and N. Cagle. 2018. Geo-referencing bird-window collisions for targeted mitigation. PeerJ 6:e4215; DOI 10.7717/peerj.4215 Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175. Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47. Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird-building collisions: a status update on "Project Birdsafe." The Loon 82:34-37. 29 Page 1179 Exhibit C SWAP E Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street,Suite 201 Santa Monica,CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G,C.Hg. (949)887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310)795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com September 30, 2021 Richard Drury Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Comments on the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Dear Mr. Drury, We have reviewed the August 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND")for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project ("Project") located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City").The Project proposes to construct a 260-unit apartment building, 3,339-SF of commercial space, 5,500-SF of amenity space, as well as a total of 465 parking spaces, on the 5.2-acre site. Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment. Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 4-8).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data,total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known,the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model,the Project's 1 CAPCOA(November 2017)CalEEMod User's Guide, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Page 1181 construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated.These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected. When reviewing the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Impacts Assessment ("AQAssessment") and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Assessment("GHG Assessment") as Appendix A and Appendix F to the IS/MND, respectively,we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result,the Project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" and "Alta Cuvee Bus Bay" models include a reduction to the default CO2 intensity factor(see excerpts below) (Appendix A, pp. 30, 91; Appendix F, pp. 28, 87). "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblPrajectCharacteristics CC2lntensi yFactor 762.44 531.98 .5 4- 4 "Alta Cuvee Bus Bay" Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value tblPrajectCharacteristics Cd2lntensittIFactor r 762.44 471.24 i As you can see in the excerpts above,the CO2 intensity factor was decreased from the default value of 702.44-to 531.98-and 471.24-pounds per megawatt hour("lbs/MWhr"), respectively, in the models.As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justifications for this change are (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 26, 91;Appendix F, pp. 23, 86): • "Electricity supplied by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility,which is not available as input selection. SCE used as surrogate" • "SB 100 mandates 44% renewable by end of 2024. SCE CO2 factor assumes 40% renewables when operations begin. SCE 2019 power mix= 36% renewables" However, these justifications remain insufficient. Review of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Content Label demonstrates that the City's CO2 intensity factor is 630 lbs/MWh (see excerpt below)3: 2 CalEEMod User Guide,available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p.2,9 3 2020 POWER CONTENT LABEL, Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility,available at: https://cityofrc.prod.acquia- sites.com/sites/default/files/2021-08/ENG-RCM U%20PCL%202020.pdf. 2 Page 1182 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity(lbs CO2e/MWh) City or Rancho 2020 CA Utility Average Cucamonga 630 466 1000 Spy I City of Rancho 600 Cucamonga 400 ■2020 CA ZQO Utility Average 0 As such,the CO2 intensity factor is underestimated by approximately 98-and 159-lbs/MWhr, respectively. These inconsistencies present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the CO2 intensity factor to calculate the Project's GHG emissions associated with electricity use.4 Thus, by including an underestimated CO2 intensity factor,the models underestimate the Project's potential GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Model All Required Parking Regarding the amount of required and proposed parking on the Project site, the IS/MND provides the following table (see excerpt below) (p. 1-15,Table 1-2): Table 1-2, Required and Proposed Parking Floorplan Units Required Total Parking Total Parking Requested Parking Per Required Proposed Parking Unit Exception A (1 Bedroom) 184 1.5 276 B (2 Bedroom) 55 2 110 C (3 Bedroom) 20 2 40 414 13 (3%) LivelWork (1 1 1.5 1 Bedroom) Commercial 3;339 SF 1 space/250 4 4 9 (69%) SF Guests 260 0.33 86 47 39 (45%) Total 260 - 526 465 51112° Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Table 17.64.050-1 for multi-family development Note:The parking code requires more than half of the parking for multifamily development to be garaged: the proposed Project does not provide dedicated garages for reach unit. 4"CalEEMod User's Guide."CAPCOA, November 2017,available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 17. 3 Page 1183 Additionally, regarding the requested parking exception,the IS/MND states: "The 12 percent parking reduction would require a minor exception approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga.The parking exception must be compatible with the surrounding area and adjoining uses. In compliance with the City Code, a parking management plan (Appendix I) has been completed to demonstrate how the proposed land uses would utilize the parking spaces, assign parking spaces to apartment units, and support the 12 percent parking reduction." As demonstrated above,the Project is pending approval from the City to reduce the amount of parking by 12%,from 526 to 465 spaces. As this request is yet to be approved, the model should have included the entire amount of required parking in order to conduct the most conservative analysis. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use" model includes only 465 parking spaces' (Appendix A, pp. 25; Appendix F, pp. 23). Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area I Population General Office Building 7.60 1000sgfl 1 0.00 4,960.00 I 0 I Parking Lot Enclosed Parking with Elevator 265.00 I Space Space 0.00 106,606.00 0 F IL i r 20600 180 86006.06 i 0 1 I City Park • 033 Acre i 0 33 14 374.86 I 0 F Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 1000sgfl i 0.07 3,060.00 j 0 - r Apartments Mid Rise 256 00 i I- I Dwelling Unit 3 00 228,60D 00 I 785 Condofiownhouse • 1.00 Dwelling Unit F 000 1,579 00 3 Step Mall • 3.34 1000sgfl 0.00 379.00 0 As you can see in the excerpt above, the total amount of required parking is underestimated by 61 spaces.This is incorrect, as we are unable to verify if the City will approve or deny the Project's requested parking exception. This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the square footage of parking for certain calculations such as determining the area to be painted and stripped (i.e.,VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume to be ventilated (i.e., energy impacts).6 Thus, by failing to include the total amount of required parking spaces, the model underestimates the Project's construction-related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Use Size According to the IS/MND,the Project proposes to construct"259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet" (p. 1-13). Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the correct number of residential units (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 25;Appendix F, pp. 23). 5 265"Enclosed Parking with Elevator"spaces+200"Parking Lot"spaces=465 6"CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2. 4 Page 1184 Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area I Population General Office Building 7.60 1090sgfl i 9 00 490900 1 0 I Enclosed Parking with Elevator 265 00 Space F 0 00 106,D0D 00 T 0 F Parking Lot 200.00 Space 1.80 80,000.OD i 0 - s ; F 4. City Park 0.33 Acre i 0.33 14,374.8D i 0 I- Recreational Swimming Pool • 3.00 1000sgfl 0 07 3,0D000 i 0 1 1 Apartments Mid Rise 259 00 Dwelling Unit 3 00 228,00D 00 I 786 I Condo/Townhouse 10D • Dwelling Unit 000 1,570.00 i 3 Strip- }Mall 3.34 t.-------1000sgfl 0.00-- -- 3,339.00 D However,further review demonstrates that the square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area was reduced from the default value of 259,000-to 228,000-SF (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 29; Appendix F, pp. 27). ITable Name Column Name I Default Value New Value r ibiLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 259,000.OD 228,DODAO I As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.'According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for this change is: "Site Plan; Project population" (Appendix A, pp. 25; Appendix F, pp. 23). Furthermore, as previously stated, the IS/MND indicates that the apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF (p. 1-13).Thus, the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185-SF8 to 354,053-SF.9 Regardless, as the IS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use, the reduction to the default floor surface area is unsubstantiated. This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model's calculations.The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts).10 Thus, by including an unsubstantiated reduction to the residential floor surface area, the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 27; Appendix F, pp. 25). 7 CalEEMod User Guide,available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p.2,9 8 Calculated: 715-SF * 259 units= 185,185-SF total. 9 Calculated: 1,367-SF * 259 units=354,053-SF total. 19 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 28. 5 Page 1185 Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nenresidential_Exterior • 100.00 5000 4 + — tblArchitecturalCoating FE Nonresidential Exterior • 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating • EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 4 + — tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nanresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblAreaCoating • Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 100 50 tblAreaCoating •• Area_EF_Nanresidential_Interior • 100 50 As you can see in the excerpt above,the nonresidential exterior and interior architectural and area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default value of 100-to 50-grams per liter("g/L"). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.11 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table, the justification provided for these changes is: "SCAQMD Building Envelope-50 g/L" (Appendix A, 26; Appendix F, pp. 24). However,these changes remain unsupported for two reasons. First,the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the building envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113, whatsoever. Second,the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only building envelope coatings during Project construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate. These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project's reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound ("ROG"/"VOC") emissions.12 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default gas fireplace values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 28; Appendix F, pp. 26). 11 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 1z CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01 user-39-s- guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p.35,40. 6 Page 1186 lI Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 25.00 0.0D tblFireplaces I FireplaceDayYear 25.00 0.0D tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3_00 D.OD + 4- _ tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3_D0 D.OD tblFireplaces 1 FireplaceWoodMass 1,019 20 1 DOD 1.tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 I 0.0D tblFireplaces t NumberGas 220.15 D.0D tblFireplaces NumberGas 0.65 D.OD f tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.90 11 0.00 tblFireplaces I NumberNoFireplace D.10 I 0.0D tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.95 I 0.0D tblFireplaces T NumberWood D.05 + DM As you can see in the excerpt above, the model assumes that the Project would not include any gas fireplaces. As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.13 However,the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table fails to provide a justification (Appendix A, pp. 25-27; Appendix F, pp. 23-25). Furthermore,the IS/MND indicates that the east building would include a courtyard with an outdoor fireplace (p. 1-13).As such,the IS/MND states at least one fireplace would be installed on the Project site. However,the IS/MND fails to mention or justify the assumption that no gas fireplaces would be included in the residential building.As such, we cannot verify the revised number of gas fireplaces. This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the number of gas fireplaces to calculate the Project's area-source operational emissions.14 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the number gas fireplaces,the model may underestimate the Project's area-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default solid waste generation rates (see excerpts below) (Attachment A, pp. 30; Appendix F, pp. 28). Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value I tblSolidWaste4 SalidWasteGeneratianRate 119.14 119.60 J tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate + 7.D7 DOD - tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 17.10 D 00 As you can see in the excerpt above, the total solid waste generation rate was cumulatively decreased by 23.71 tons per year ("tons/year").15 As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires 'CalEEMod User's Guide,available at::http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01 user-39-s- guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2,9. 14 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p.40. 15 Calculated: (119.14 tons/year+7.07 tons/year+17.10 tons/year)-(119.60 tons/year) =23.71 tons/year. 7 Page 1187 any changes to model defaults be justified.16 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non- Default Data" table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Remove duplicate waste generation" (Appendix A, 26;Appendix F, pp. 24). Furthermore, regarding the Project's anticipated solid waste generation rate, the IS/MND states: "It is anticipated that the proposed Project would accommodate approximately 788 future residents, and operational activities would generate approximately 1.6 tons per day of solid waste during Project operation" (p.4-73). As demonstrated above,the Project anticipates generating 1.6 tons of solid waste per day, or roughly 584 tons/year.17 However,the model includes a total of only 123.6 tons/yearl8(see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 85; Appendix F, pp. 82). Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MTlyr Apartments Mid 119.6 24.2777 1.4348 0.0000 60.1470 Rise City Park 0.03 6.0900e- 3.6000e 0.0000 T 3.3151 003 ; 004 Condo/Townhous 0.46 0.0934T5.5200e / 0.0000 T 0.2313 e 003 r r i Enclosed Parking 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator General Office 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Building r r Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 r r .U0 Recreational 0 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 000 r 0.0000 Swimming Pool Strip Mall 3.51 0.7125 0.0421 0.0000 / 1.7652 25.0897 1.4828 0.0000 621586 As such,the solid waste included in the model is underestimated by 460.4 tons/year.19 Thus,the model is inconsistent with the information provided in the IS/MND. This underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the solid waste generation rates to calculate the Project's operation GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste into landfills.20 Thus, by including underestimated solid waste generation rates,the model underestimates the Project's operational GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. 16 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 17(1.6 tons/day)x 365 days=584 tons/year. 18(119.6 tons/year for"Apartments Mid Rise")+(0.03 tons/year for"City Park")+(0.46 tons/year for "Condo/Townhouse")+(3.51 tons/year"Strip Mall")= 123.6 tons/year of total solid waste. 19(584 tons/year proposed by the IS/MND)-(123.6 tons/year included in the model) 20 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p.46. 8 Page 1188 Underestimated Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use" model includes several changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpts below) (Appendix A, pp. 28-29;Appendix F, pp. 26-27). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value I tblFleetM ix H HD 0.07 0 00 + - tblFleetMix HHD • 0_07 0 00 4 4- - tblFleetM ix LDA • 0_56 0.60 tblFleetM ix 4. LDA 0_56 0.60 + - tblFleetM ix LDT1 • 0.04 0.06 tblFleetM ix LDT1 • 0.04 0.06 tblFleetM ix LDT2 0.10 0.19 4 + - tblFleetM ix LDT2 • 0.10 0.19 tblFleetM ix 1 LHD1 • 0_01 0.02 • + - tblFleetMix 4. LHD1 0_01 0.02 tblFleetM ix LHD2 • 4.7940e-003 5 0000e-003 . tblFleetM ix LHD2 4.7940e-003 5.0000e-003 i 4 tbIFIeetMix MCY • 5.7250e-003 0.01 I - - tb I FI eetM ix MCY • 5.7250e-003 0.01 tbIFIeetMix MDV • 0.11 0.12 + - tblFleetMix MDV • 0.11 0.12 tbIFIeetMix I MIA • 3.3000e-004 0.00 tbIFIeetMix 4. M H 8.3000e-004 0.00 4 -e- - tbIFIeetMix MHD • 0.02 0.00 tbIFIeetMix MHD • 0_02 0 00 • + - 1bIFIeetMix ()BUS • 1.3650e-003 0.00 4 4H - tblFleetMix OBUS • 1.3650e-003 0.00 tbIFIeetMix 4. SBUS 7.9900e-004 0 00 + - tb l Fl eetM ix SBUS • 7.9900e-004 0.00 tbIFIeetMix UBUS • 1.4910e-003 0.00 ibIFIeetMix UBUS 1 4910e-003 0.00 s As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.21 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Residential Trips" (Appendix A, pp. 27;Appendix F, pp. 25). However, these changes remain unsupported, as the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the operational vehicle fleet mix or justify the revised percentages whatsoever. According to the CalEEMod User's Guide: 21 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 9 Page 1189 "CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project- specific information,when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA" (emphasis added).22 Here, as the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, we cannot verify the changes. These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as operational vehicle fleet mix percentages are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project's operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles.23 Thus, by including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix,the model may underestimate the Project's mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 30;Appendix F, pp. 28). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblaffRaadEquipment HDrsePower 78_OD — 15.00 i f tblOffRoadEquipment Horsepower • 78.0D 15.00 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.24 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Project Inventory" (Appendix A, pp. 26;Appendix F, pp. 24). However, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention or justify the revised horsepower values whatsoever. According to the CalEEMod User's Guide: "CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project- specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA" (emphasis added).25 Here, as the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised horsepower values, we cannot verify the changes. These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses horsepower values to calculate emissions associated with off-road construction equipment.26 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values,the model may underestimate the 22 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User's Guide,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12. 23 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 24 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 25 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User's Guide,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12. 26 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 32. 10 Page 1190 Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the following construction-related mitigation measure (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 38; Appendix F, pp. 36): 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.27 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table, the justification provided for this inclusion is: "SCAQMD Rule 403" (Appendix A, pp. 24; Appendix F, pp. 22). However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned construction-related mitigation measure remains unsupported for two reasons. First,the inclusion of the construction-related mitigation measures, based on the Project's compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, is unsupported.According to the Association of Environmental Professionals ("AEP") CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures: "By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts."28 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design and are intended to go above-and-beyond existing regulatory requirements. As such, the inclusion of these measures, based solely on SCAQMD Rule 403, is unsubstantiated. Second, according to the above-mentioned AEP report: "While not'mitigation', a good practice is to include those project design feature(s)that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project 27 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 28"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p.5. 11 Page 1191 that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact."29 As you can see in the excerpts above, project design features ("PDFs")that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether.Thus, as the above- mentioned construction-related measure is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. By including a construction-related mitigation measures without properly committing to its implementation,the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the following energy-, area-, and water-related operational mitigation measures (see excerpts below) (Attachment A, pp. 72, 77, 79; Appendix F, pp. 70, 75, 77): Energy-Related Mitigation Measures: 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Install High Efficiency Lighting Install Energy Efficient Appliances Area-Related Mitigation Measures: 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area No Hearths Installed Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies Water-Related Mitigation Measures: 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 29"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf,p. 6. 12 Page 1192 As a result of the above-mentioned water-related operational mitigation measures,the model includes an efficient irrigation water use reduction of 20% (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 32; Appendix F, pp. 30). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value r tblWaterMitigation •UseWaterEfficientlmgationSystemPercen� 6.1 26 L [Reduction As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.30 However the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data"table, only provides justification for the inclusion of the area-related operational mitigation measures, which states: "SCAQMD Rule 1113" (Appendix A, pp. 27; Appendix F, pp. 25). Furthermore, regarding sustainable design features,the IS/MND states: "The proposed Project would be designed to exceed the 2019 Title 24 energy efficient standards by approximately 7.2 percent in one building and by approximately 2.5 percent in the other, approximately 10 percent more efficient than 2016 Title 24 standards [...] Water and energy efficient mechanical equipment and electric appliances (i.e., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning(HVAC), water heaters, kitchen appliances and plumbing)that require less usage intensity for operation and comply with Title 24 of the California Government Code" (p. 1-15). However,the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures remains unsupported for two reasons. First,the inclusion of the operational mitigation measures, based on the Project's purported compliance with Title 24 and SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsupported.As previously stated, according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures: "By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts."31 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures "are not part of the original project design" and are intended to go "above-and-beyond" existing regulatory requirements. As such,the inclusion of these measures, based on the Project's vague compliance with Title 24 and SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsubstantiated. 3°CalEEMod User's Guide,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01 user-39-s- guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2,9. 31"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p.5. 13 Page 1193 Second, the IS/MND fails to formally include the above-mentioned design features as Project-level mitigation measures.This is incorrect, as AEP guidance states: "While not"mitigation", a good practice is to include those project design feature(s)that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact" (emphasis added).32 As you can see in the excerpt above, design features that are not formally included as mitigation measures in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether.Thus, as the above-mentioned energy-, area-, and water-related operational measures are not formally included as mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.As a result, the inclusion of the above- mentioned operational mitigation measures in the model is incorrect. By including several operational mitigation measures without properly committing to their implementation,the model may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Provide Summer and Winter CalEEMod Output Files As previously discussed,the IS/MND's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated by CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 4-8).33 CalEEMod provides three types of output files—annual, summer, and winter. Specifically,the CalEEMod User's Guide states: "The available reports include: Annual, Summer(peak) Daily, Winter(peak) Daily, Mitigation and Summary of peak daily emissions and annual GHG emissions.34 As demonstrated above,the CalEEMod summer and winter output files provide peak daily emissions estimates in pounds per day("lbs/day"). Furthermore,the IS/MND quantifies the Project's construction- related and operational maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions and compares them to the applicable SCAQMD thresholds (see excerpts below) (p. 4-8,Table 4.3-14-9,Table 4.3-2). 32"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://cegaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 33 CAPCOA(November 2017)CalEEMod User's Guide, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 34 CAPCOA(November 2017)CalEEMod User's Guide, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4,p.61. 14 Page 1194 Table 4.3-1.Maximum Regional Daily Emissions During Construction VOC NOx CO SOx PM-10 PM2.5 (Ibslday) (Ibslday) (lbslday) (lbslday) (Ibslday) (lbs/day) Maximum Regional Daily Emissions 29.1 69.8 81.3 0.2 8.9 4.1 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Source:TAHA 2021 CO=carbon monoxide;lbs/day=pounds per day;NOx=nitrogen oxide;PM10=particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter;PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;SOx=sulfur oxide;VOC=volatile organic compounds Table 4.3-2.Daily Operational Emissions (2024} VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 (Ibslday) (lbs/day) (Ibslday) (Ibslday) (lbslday) {Ibslday} Daily Operational Emissions' 8.7 6.0 56.3 D.I 12.8 3.6 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Source TAHA 2021 I Includes area (e g..consumer products and landscaping),energy(consumption of energy),and mobile(e.g._ vehicle trips)sources CO=carbon monoxide;lbslday=pounds per day;NOx=nitrogen oxide;PM10=particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter;PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;SOx=sulfur oxide;VOC=volatile organic compounds However, review of the AQ Assessment and GHG Assessment demonstrates that the summer and winter CalEEMod output files are not disclosed.As such, we cannot verify that the above-mentioned emissions estimates are an accurate reflection of the peak daily emissions reported in the IS/MND's CalEEMod output files.As the IS/MND fails to provide the summer and winter output files,the IS/MND's air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to include an adequate air quality analysis and disclose all CalEEMod output files. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis ("HRA"). Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND states: "The SCAQMD has not established a mass daily screening threshold for diesel emissions, and the only established TAC significance thresholds require estimating concentrations of TAC in ambient air resulting from project emissions using intensive air dispersion modeling. However, the low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment combined with the brevity of the construction period and local meteorological characteristics indicate that the proposed Project would not generate substantial emissions over an extended period of time that could cause a health risk to adjacent land uses. In addition,the size of the Project site indicates that only during a limited portion of construction activities would heavy-duty diesel- powered equipment be operating within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, and all construction equipment would be maintained in accordance with the CARB Portable Engine Air Toxics Control Measure and the Off-Road Diesel Regulation to control emissions to the maximum extent feasible.Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations" (p. 4-11). 15 Page 1195 As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant construction-related health risk impact because the low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment,the short-term construction schedule, and the local meteorological conditions would not generate substantial toxic air contaminant ("TAC") emissions. Furthermore, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation,the IS/MND states: "The proposed Project would introduce a new multi-family residential land use to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and would be consistent with existing surrounding land use developments. Operation of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area.The proposed Project does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations.The operational emissions analysis shown in Table 4.3-2 demonstrates that operation of the proposed Project would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations.Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations" (p.4-12). As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less- than-significant operational health risk impact because the Project's operational criteria air pollutants would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. However, the IS/MND fails to mention or discuss the Project's operational TAC emissions whatsoever. However,the IS/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than- significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons. First, by failing to quantitatively evaluate the Project's construction-related and operational TAC emissions,the IS/MND fails to make a reasonable effort to connect these emissions to potential health risk impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors.This is incorrect, as construction of the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter("DPM") emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of approximately 24 months (p. 1- 16). Furthermore,the IS/MND indicates that Project operation would generate approximately 1,503 average daily vehicle trips,which would generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 4-9). However,the IS/MND fails to discuss Project- generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects.Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project's construction-related and operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors,the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse impacts on human health. Second,the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment("OEHHA"),the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines:Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015.This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer 16 Page 1196 risks to nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project's construction duration vastly exceeds the 2-month requirement set forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance. Furthermore, the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident("MEIR"). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore,we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA.These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions be included in an EIR for the Project. Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors,the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.35 Thus, pursuant to CEQA, an analysis of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted. Screening-Level Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk analysis we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.36 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA37 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated ("CAPCOA")'guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening analyses ("HRSAs").A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. In order to estimate the health risk impacts posed to residential sensitive receptors as a result of the Project's construction-related and operational TAC emissions, we prepared a preliminary HRA using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the CalEEMod output files included in the IS/MND. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.The IS/MND's CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate 35"South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds."SCAQMD,April 2019,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 36 U.S. EPA(April 2011)AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 37"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 38 CAPCOA(July 2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_H RA_LU_Guidel ines_8-6-09.pdf. 17 Page 1197 approximately 799 pounds of DPM over the 735-day construction period.39 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources.To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation: grams 799.2 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate ( ) = x x x = 0.00571 g/s second 735 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00571 grams per second ("g/s"). Subtracting the 735-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction,the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project's operational DPM for an additional 28 years, approximately.The IS/MND's operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 86 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation: grams 85.8 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate ( ) = x x x = 0.00123 g/s second 365 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00123 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 5.2-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with dimensions of approximately 205- by 103-meters.A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures,the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.4° The IS/MND indicates that the nearest sensitive receptors are residences 50 feet, or 15 meters, away from the project site (p. 4-47,Table 4.13-4). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual resident("MEIR") is located approximately 100 meters from the Project site.Thus,the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 9.101 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%,we get an annualized average concentration of 0.9101 p.g/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 1.967 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour 39 See Attachment B for calculations. 49"Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised." EPA, 1992,available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf;see also"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p.4-36. 18 Page 1198 concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1967 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR. We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. Consistent with the 735-day construction schedule included in the Project's CalEEMod output files,the annualized average concentration for Project construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy(0.25 years) and the first 1.76 years of the infantile stage of life (0—2 years); and the annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period,which makes up the remaining and the 0.24 years of the infantile stage of life (0—2 years),the entire child stage of life, and the entire adult stage of life (16—30 years). Consistent with OEHHA guidance and recommended by the SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASF")to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.41,42,43 According to this guidance,the quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant), as well as multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2—16 years). We also included the quantified cancer risk without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution in accordance with older OEHHA guidance from 2003.This guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario than what is currently recommended by SCAQMD,the air quality district with jurisdiction over the City, and several other air districts in the state. Furthermore, in accordance with the guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.44 Finally, according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home ("FAH")Value of 1 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors.45 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days.The results of our calculations are shown below. 41"Draft Environmental Impact Report(IS/MND)for the Proposed The Exchange(SCH No. 2018071058)."SCAQMD, March 2019,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/comment- letters/2019/march/RVC190115-03.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p.4. 42"California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, May 2017,available at: http://www.baagmd.gov/'/media/files/planning-and-research/cega/ceqa guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56;see also"Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards." BAAQMD, May 2011, available at:http://www.baagmd.gov/' media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling %20Approach.ashx, p.65,86. 43"Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document."SJVAPCD, May 2015,available at:https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf, p.8, 20,24. 44"Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act,"July 2018,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588supplementalguidelines.pdf, p. 16. "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf 4s"Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1,and 212."SCAQMD,August 2017,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed- Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf, p.7. 19 Page 1199 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Emissions Duration Concentration Breathing Cancer Risk Cancer Risk Age Group ASF Source (years) (ug/m3) Rate(L/kg-day) (without ASFs*) (with ASFs*) 3rd Construction 0.25 0.9101 361 1.24E-06 10 1.24E-05 Trimester 1.76 0.9101 0.24 0.1967 Infant Total 2 2.71E-05 10 2.71E-04 (Age 0-2) Child Operation 14 0.1967 572 2.37E-05 3 7.12E-05 (Age 2-16) Adult Operation 14 0.1967 261 7.91E-06 1 7.91E-06 (Age 16-30) Lifetime 30 6.00E-05 3.63E-04 *We,along with CARB and SCAQMD,recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance,which includes ASFs. As demonstrated in the table above,the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing ASFs, is approximately 12.4, 271, 71.2, and 7.91 in one million, respectively.The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), utilizing ASFs, is approximately 363 in one million.The 3rd trimester, infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. Utilizing ASFs is the most conservative, health-protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and reflects recommendations from the air district. Results without ASFs are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis. Regardless, excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, without ASFs, are approximately 1.24, 27.1, 23.7, and 7.91 in one million, respectively.The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), without ASFs, is approximately 60 in one million. While we recommend the use of ASFs, the Project's infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks without ASFs, as estimated by SWAPE, exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million regardless,thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA,which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection.46 The purpose of the screening-level 46"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5 20 Page 1200 construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project's emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used.Therefore, our screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact,the City should prepare an EIR analysis with an HRA which makes a reasonable effort to connect the Project's air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors.Thus,the City should prepare an updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year("MT CO2e/year"),which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year(p. 4-31,Table 4.8-1). Table 4.8-1. Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source Category Annual GHG Emissions(MTCO2e per year) Amortized Construction Emissions(Direct) 108.7 Area Source Emissions(Direct) 4.5 Energy Source Emissions (Indirect) 597.6 Mobile Source Emissions (Direct) 1,794.0 Solid Waste Disposal Emissions(Indirect) 62.2 Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment(Indirect) 101.0 Total Annual GHG Emissions 2,668.0 Threshold 3,000 Exceed Threshold? No Source:TAHA 2021 Furthermore,the IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS,the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan ("CAP") in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p.4-31—4-32). However,the IS/MND's GHG analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for five reasons: (1) The IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; (3) SWAPE's updated analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact; (4) The IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB's Scoping Plan; and (5) The IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG's RTP/SCS. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 MT CO2e/year(p. 4-31,Table 4.8-1). However,the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis is 21 Page 1201 unsubstantiated. As previously discussed,when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQ Assessment and GHG Assessment as Appendix A and Appendix F to the IS/MND, respectively,we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result,the model underestimates the Project's emissions, and the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment. 2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p.4-31,Table 4.8-1). However,the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2/year threshold, the SCAQMD's 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as "AB 32", was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.47 Furthermore,AEP guidance states: "[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon,the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone."48 As it is currently September 2021,thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such,the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the IS/MND's less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead,we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.49 3) Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact SWAPE's updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact,when applying the outdated SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year.The updated CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE with Project-specific information, disclose the Project's mitigated emissions,which include approximately 150 MT CO2e of total construction emissions (sum of 2022, 2023, and 2024) and approximately 3,824 MT CO2e/year of net annual operational emissions (sum of area-, energy-, mobile-, waste-, and water-related emissions). When amortizing the Project's construction-related GHG 4'HEALTH &SAFETY CODE 38550,available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml?IawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 48"Beyond Newhall and 2020:A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California."Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP),October 2016,available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016 Final White Paper.pdf, p. 39. 49"Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group#15."SCAQMD,September 2010,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 22 Page 1202 emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project's operational GHG emissions, we estimate net annual GHG emissions of approximately 3,975 MT CO2e/year(see table below). SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Phase Proposed Project (MT CO2e/year) Construction (amortized over 30 years) 150.54 Area 67.31 Energy 785.56 Mobile 2,546.48 Waste 293.70 Water 131.08 Total Annual Operational 3,824.13 Net Annual GHG Emissions 3,974.67 Threshold 3,000 Exceed? Yes As demonstrated above,the Project's estimated net annual GHG emissions exceed the outdated SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year, thus resulting in a significant impact not previously addressed or mitigated in the IS/MND. As stated above, this threshold is outdated, and we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.50 However, as the IS/MND fails to provide the Project's estimated number of residents and employees,we are unable to compare the Project's emissions to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target.As such, an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines. 4) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan As previously discussed,the IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan to determine Project GHG significance (p. 4-31). However,this is incorrect, as the IS/MND fails to consider performance-based measures proposed by CARB. i. Passenger& Light Duty VMT Per Capita Benchmarks per SB 375 In reaching the State's long-term GHG emission reduction goals, CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan explicitly cites to SB 375 and the VMT reductions anticipated under the implementation of Sustainable Community Strategies.51 CARB has identified the population and daily VMT from passenger autos and so"Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group#15."SCAQMD,September 2010,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 51"California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan."CARB, November 2017,available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping plan 2017.pdf, p. 25,98, 101-103. 23 Page 1203 light-duty vehicles at the state and county level for each year between 2010 to 2050 under a "baseline scenario"that includes "current projections of VMT included in the existing Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCSs) adopted by the State's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) pursuant to SB 375 as of 2015."52 By dividing the projected daily VMT by the population, we calculated the daily VMT per capita for each year at the state and county level for 2010 (baseline year), 2022 (Project operational year), and 2030(target years under SB 32) (see table below). 2017 Scoping Plan Daily VMT Per Capita San Bernardino County State Year Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita 2010 2,043,484 55,741,307.23 27.28 37,335,085 836,463,980.46 22.40 2024 2,327,528 62,431,182.19 26.82 41,994,283 926,776,780.89 22.07 2030 2,478,888 65,538,854.28 26.44 43,939,250 957,178,153.19 21.78 As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project's consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performance- based daily VMT per capita projections,the IS/MND's claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. 5) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards under SCAG's RTP/SCS Here, as discussed above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would be consistent with SCAG's RTP/SCS(p. 4-32). However,the IS/MND fails to consider whether or not the Project meets any of the specific performance-based goals underlying SCAG's RTP/SCS and SB 375, such as: i) per capita GHG emission targets, or ii) daily vehicles miles traveled ("VMT") per capita benchmarks. i. SB 375 Per Capita GHG Emission Goals SB 375 was signed into law in September 2008 to enhance the state's ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles (autos and light-duty trucks). In March 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets requiring a 19 percent decrease in VMT for the SCAG region by 2035.This goal is reflected in SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR"), in which the 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR updates the per capita emissions to 18.8 lbs/day in 2035 (see excerpt below).s3 Sz"Supporting Calculations for 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions," Excel Sheet"Readme."CARB, January 2019,available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 01/sp mss vmt calculations ian19 0.xlsx. ss"Connect SoCal Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report."SCAG, May 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir connectsocal complete.pdf?1607981618, p.3.8-74. 24 Page 1204 Table 3. -10 SB 375 Analysis 2005(Baseline) 2 (Plan) 2035(Nan) Resident population(per I,illk)) 17,161 19.194 21.110 CO2 Enissians(per l,11C]4`1tons) ?(i4Ay' 204.5e I98.6fb1 Per capita enussinrrs(priundsiday) 23_s 21.3 "Kg %difference From Plan(2020)to Baseline{20(15) —f3% %difference from Plan(2035}to Baseline(2005) Note: 1n1 Parsed ore EMFAc2oM7 lb/Bawd fin EJr1FA2014 and SCAG rrradelirrig,2019_ Jd lmefrrrles of rrt dd adjbstrrrertta far21135 and 2045 Sburcc. SCAG rrmrdeling,201 blip:Thr at..scag-a.covicrrorreitreew'CammitlreUocLrb my/faMlRCPC11?!_il.5)iiClayerFri) As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project's consistency with the SCAG's per capita emissions, the IS/MND's claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG's RTP/SCS is unsupported.An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. i. SB 375 RTP/SCS Daily VMT Per Capita Target Under the SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS, daily VMT per capita in the SCAG region should decrease from 23.2 VMT in 2016 to 20.7 VMT by 2045.54 Daily VMT per capita in Los Angeles County should decrease from 22.2 to 19.2 VMT during that same period.55 Here, however,the IS/MND fails to consider any of the above-mentioned performance-based VMT targets. As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project's consistency with the SCAG's performance-based daily VMT per capita projections,the IS/MND's claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG's RTP/SCS is unsupported.An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. Design Features Should Be Included as Mitigation Measures Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. We recommend that the IS/MND implement all PDFs, such as including water and energy efficient mechanical equipment and electric appliances,water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems, and electric vehicle charging stations, as formal mitigation measures. As a result, we could guarantee that these measures would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. Including formal mitigation measures by properly committing to their implementation would result in verifiable emissions reductions that may help reduce emissions to less- than-significant levels. 54"Connect SoCal."SCAG,September 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176,pp. 138. ss"Connect SoCal."SCAG,September 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138. 25 Page 1205 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented.This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. 112.1 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations Attachment C:AERSCREEN Output Files Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV Attachment E: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV 26 Page 1206 Attachment A CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 7.60 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 T 4,900.00 i 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 300.00 + Space ; 0.00 120,000.00 + 0 Parking Lot 226.00 + Space ; 1.80 90,400.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,374.80 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.07 3,000.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 259,000.00 + 741 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 r r + I- Strip Mall 3.34 1000sgft 0.00 3,339.00 0 • • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib01Whr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) v cn CD 14 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 0 Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor" Land Use - See SWAPE comments on "Failure to Model Required Amount of Parking" and "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Us Enclosed Parking= 57% of total, Parking Lot=43% of total parking. CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Construction Phase-Consistent with IS/MND's model Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Architectural Coating -See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Woodstoves -Woodstoves: consistent with IS/MND's model. Fireplaces: See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values" Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Energy Use- Water And Wastewater- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. v cn Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Solid Waste Generation Rates" Taal adds up to 584 tons/year Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces • FireplaceWoodMass } 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces Y FireplaceWoodMass + T 1,019.20 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 220.15 259.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 0.85 T 1.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 25.90 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 0.10 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 12.95 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 0.05 T 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 60.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 45.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 24.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 12.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 21,180.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 7,600.00 T 4,900.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 1,000.00 T 1,570.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 3,340.00 T 3,339.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.17 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.70 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.03 T 1.80 4 co tblLandUse LotAcreage + 6.82 3.00 CD N tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.06 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.08 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount + 1.00 T 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 4 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblOffRoadEquipment i OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 3.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor * 702.44 630 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 119.14 555.83 t ._Z . a.) tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber * 2,648.00 2,880.00 ._a) 4 . N tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber f 1,324.00 1,440.00 o tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 66.00 40.00 4 4 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber • 66.00 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber ,i 15.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 57.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips CC_TL ,i 8.40 10.90 r • tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL f 6.90 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips CW_TL * 16.60 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 40.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL * 8.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TL * 5.90 10.90 ._Z4 cQ tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP * 19.20 20.00 ._a) 4 tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP * 19.20 20.00 tblVehicleTrips HW_TL * 14.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP * 40.20 40.00 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 6 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP f 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP ,i 15.00 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 45.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 6.39 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 22.75 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 5.67 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 2.46 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 9.10 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 42.04 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR ,i 5.86 5.48 r • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR f 16.74 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 4.84 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 1.05 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 13.60 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 20.43 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 6.65 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 1.89 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 5.81 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 11.03 0.00 ._Z4 ca.) tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 33.82 0.00 ._a) 4 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 44.32 24.86 IvtblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 16,874,892.64 16,940,046.66 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 177,429.43 0.00 4 4 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate • 10,638,519.27 10,679,594.63 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 827,895.26 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic f 12.95 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic • ,i 0.05 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 12.95 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 0.05 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass r 999.60 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary v CO CD N W CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 2022 •1 0.4472 1 3.9343 1 3.8304 1 9.7000e- 1 0.2963 1 0.1598 1 0.4562 1 0.0674 1 0.1548 0.2223 : 0.0000 1 868.1095 1 868.1095 1 0.0981 1 0.0000 i 870.5612 9 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I Ti ; J J J J J J J J I J J J I 1 I : I I 1 I 1 1 2023 •1 0.5684 1 3.9296 1 5.6253 1 0.0118 0.3179 1 0.1765 1 0.4944 1 0.0852 1 0.1749 ; 0.2601 : 0.0000 1 1,036.191 1 1,036.191 1 0.0775 1 0.0000 i 1,038.127 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I 1 I I 1 3 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T : 1 : 1 : : 1 I 1 1 2024 •1 1.9424 1.2399 1 1.8664 3.9000e- 1 0.1021 0.0512 0.1533 1 0.0274 1 0.0502 ; 0.0776 : 0.0000 1 345.0841 1 345.0841 1 0.0325 1 0.0000 : 345.8963 9 I I 1 003 I I I I I . I I I 1 9 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 I 1 Maximum 1.9424 3.9343 5.6253 0.0118 0.3179 0.1765 0.4944 0.0852 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.191 1,036.191 0.0981 0.0000 1,038.127 1 1 3 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2 5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 •i 0.4472 1 3.9343 I 3.8304 1 9.7000e- 1 0.2963 1 0.1598 1 0.4562 I 0.0674 1 0.1548 : 0.2223 • 0.0000 868.1089 1868.1089 1 0.0981 1 0.0000 1870.5606 •1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 . I 1 1 1 .1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I • I I I 1 _A �I J J J J J J J J J J J cQ 2023 •1 0.5684 i 3.9296 1 5.6253 i 0.0118 1 0.3179 i 0.1765 i 0.4944 1 0.0852 i 0.1749 : 0.2601 • 0.0000 1,036.190 1 1,036.190 i 0.0775 1 0.0000 11,038.126 CD . I I I I I I I I . 3 I 3 I I 1 5 I I I I I I I I , • 1 1 I 1 y '1 I J J J J I J J J J J 1. 2024 .1 1.9424 1 1.2399 1 1.8664 1 3.9000e- 1 0.1021 1 0.0512 1 0.1533 1 0.0274 1 0.0502 0.0776 • 0.0000 345.0839 1 345.0839 1 0.0325 1 0.0000 1345.8960 '1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I . I I I 1 '1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 Maximum 1.9424 3.9343 5.6253 0.0118 0.3179 0.1765 0.4944 0.0852 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.190 1,036.190 0.0981 0.0000 1,038.126 3 3 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) 1 3-5-2022 6-4-2022 1.4079 1.4079 2 6-5-2022 9-4-2022 1.2728 1.2728 3 9-5-2022 12-4-2022 1.3150 1.3150 4 12-5-2022 3-4-2023 1.2210 1.2210 5 3-5-2023 6-4-2023 1.1835 1.1835 6 6-5-2023 9-4-2023 1.0936 1.0936 7 9-5-2023 12-4-2023 1.0817 1.0817 8 12-5-2023 3-4-2024 1.0395 1.0395 9 3-5-2024 6-4-2024 0.9290 0.9290 10 6-5-2024 9-4-2024 1.5127 1.5127 Highest 1.5127 1.5127 0) CO m lV 01 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Area •i 1.1609 0.0849 1 2.7100 4.9000e- 0.0192 0.0192 1 0.0192 0.0192 .. 0.0000 i 66.8289 1 66.8289 5.4300e- 1 1.1400e- i 67.3059 •1 I 1 I 004 1 I I 1 I . I I I 003 I 003 1 '1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 1 :I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 Energy •1 0.0209 1 0.1788 0.0766 1.1400e- 1 1 0.0145 1 0.0145 1 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 1 782.0369 1 782.0369 1 0.0304 1 9.2700e- i 785.5608 9 I I I 003 1 I I I I . I I I I 003 1'I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 I 1 :I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Mobile .1 0.4455 1 3.0770 1 6.0309 0.0274 1 2.2695 1 0.0166 1 2.2862 1 0.6082 0.0155 0.6237 : 0.0000 1 2,543.694 1 2,543.694 1 0.1116 1 0.0000 i 2,546.483 9 I I 1 1 I I I I . 1 3 1 3 1 I I 4 'I I I I I 1 1 1 1 , . I I I 1 1 :I J J J J J J J J V I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Waste •1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 118.5467 1 0.0000 1 118.5467 1 7.0059 1 0.0000 i 293.6945 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I 1 :I J J J 1 J J J J 7 I J J J T I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 Water •I 1 1 1 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 5.9020 1 105.3330 1 111.2350 1 0.6110 1 0.0153 i 131.0754 9 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.6273 3.3406 8.8175 0.0291 2.2695 0.0503 2.3199 0.6082 0.0492 0.6574 124.4487 3,497.893 3,622.341 7.7644 0.0257 3,824.119 1 8 9 9) tO CD IV 0) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 Area •i 1.1609 1 0.0849 1 2.7100 1 4.9000e- 1 1 0.0192 1 0.0192 1 1 0.0192 0.0192 : 0.0000 1 66.8289 1 66.8289 1 5.4300e- 1 1.1400e- i 67.3059 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 003 I 'I 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J -r I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 1 Energy •1 0.0209 1 0.1788 1 0.0766 1 1.1400e- 1 0.0145 1 0.0145 1 1 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 1 782.0369 1 782.0369 1 0.0304 1 9.2700e- i 785.5608 9 I I 1 003 I I I I I . I I I I 003 1'1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J -r I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 1 Mobile •1 0.4455 1 3.0770 1 6.0309 1 0.0274 2.2695 1 0.0166 1 2.2862 1 0.6082 1 0.0155 0.6237 : 0.0000 1 2,543.694 1 2,543.694 1 0.1116 1 0.0000 i 2,546.483 9 1 I 1 I 1 I I I . I 3 I 3 1 I 1 4 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . I J J J -r I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Waste •1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 118.5467 1 0.0000 1 118.5467 1 7.0059 1 0.0000 1 293.6945 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I 1 �I J J J J J J J J V I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 Water •1 1 1 1 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 5.9020 1 105.3330 1 111.2350 1 0.6110 i 0.0153 i 131.0754 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 '1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 . I 1 1 I 1 Total 1.6273 3.3406 8.8175 0.0291 2.2695 0.0503 2.3199 0.6082 0.0492 0.6574 124.4487 3,497.893 3,622.341 7.7644 0.0257 3,824.119 1 8 I 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase v cn CD N v CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 :Demolition :Demolition 13/5/2022 :4/1/2022 : 5: 20: + I , 1 2 :Site Preparation :Grading 14/30/2022 :5/27/2022 : 51, 20 , + i 1 3 •Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Site Preparation 4/2/2022 :4/15/2022 : 51, 10: I + , i i , 4 :Construction-East Building :Building Construction 6/25/2022 :5/12/2023 : 51, 230: + I , 1 1 , 5 :Grading :Grading 5/28/2022 :6/24/2022 : 51, 20: + I , 1 1 , 6 :Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation 4/16/2022 :4/29/2022 : 51, 10: + I , 1 , 7 :Construction-West Building :Building Construction 5/13/2023 :3/29/2024 : 51, 230: + , I 1 , 8 :Paving-East Building :Paving 3/30/2024 :4/26/2024 : 51, 20: + , I , 1 1 9 :Architectural Coatings East Bldg :Architectural Coating 5/25/2024 :6/21/2024 : 5: 20: + I , 1 , 10 :Paving-West Building :Paving 4/27/2024 :5/24/2024 : 51, 20: + 1 I 1 1 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:Architectural Coating .6/22/2024 :7/19/2024 5' 20 I Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 Acres of Paving: 1.8 Residential Indoor: 527,654; Residential Outdoor: 175,885; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,359; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,120; Striped Parking Area: 12,624 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power Load Factor Delaolition 'Concrete/Industrial Saws , 11 8.00 81: 0.73 si.) + Denolition :Excavators ; 11 8.00� 158' 0.38 1 _ Demolition 'Generator Sets , 21 4.00, 84' 0.74 co I Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 21 8.00, 247' 0.40 + 1- Site Preparation :Crawler Tractors 2. 8.00' 212: 0.43 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual •Site Preparation •Excavators 0 8.00• 158• 0.38 Site Preparation Graders , 1 8.001 187: 0.41 --+ e Site Preparation +Rollers , 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --+ e Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers , 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 , i Site Preparation Scrapers , 1 8.001 367' 0.48 --+ Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 0; 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ e Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 , i Trenching/Utilites-East Building Excavators , 1 8.001 158' 0.38 --+ Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Rubber Tired Dozers , 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --+ e Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 , i Trenching/Utilites-East Building Trenchers , 2 8.001 78' 0.50 a ' y Construction-East Building +Air Compressors , 10 8.001 78' 0.48 --+ Construction-East Building Cranes , 1! 7.001 231' 0.29 --+ e Construction-East Building Forklifts , 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --+ e Construction-East Building Generator Sets , 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ e Construction-East Building Rough Terrain Forklifts , 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 Construction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 ,_ ' i Construction-East Building !Welders , 0 8.001 46' 0.45 --+ Grading Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 e Grading Excavators , 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 ,_ _ Grading Graders , 1! 8.001 187' 0.41 ,_ _ Grading Rollers , 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 - - - --+ GMding +RubberTired Dozers ; 0; 8.00 247� 0.40 CD ' __ 7 4 Grading Scrapers , 1! 8.001 367' 0.48 Grating +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 0; 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ e Trenching/Utilities-West Building Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.00' 212' 0.43 * F Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Excavators 1. 8.00' 158: 0.38 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Rubber Tired Dozers 0• 8.00• 247• 0.401 Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.001 97: 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 : Construction-West Building +Air Compressors ; 10 8.00178' 0.48 --+ Construction-West Building :Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --+ Construction-West Building Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --+ Construction-West Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-West Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --+ Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 --+ Construction-West Building Welders ; 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 --+ Paving-East Building +Pavers ; 2; 8.00 130' 0.42 , Paving-East Building Paving Equipment ; 2 8.00 132' 0.36 --+ Paving-East Building :Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --+ Architectural Coatings East Bldg !Air Compressors ; 4; 6.001 78' 0.48 --+ Paving-West Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --+ Paving-West Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 Paving-West Building Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 * F Architectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 4' 6.00' 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT v CO CD N N.) O CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 40.001 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT ' I I I ' J Site Preparation 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT 1 I I ' J Trenching/Utilites- 6; 40.00. 0.001 2,880.001 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+Q1 1il.+inn £ • I I I I j Construction-East i 15: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q 11il.Jinn , I I I I J -i - T Grading 6; 40.001 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix �HDT_Mix HHDT ' ' 1 I I ' J -1 - T Trenching/Utilities- 6: 40.001 0.00 i 1,440.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix HHDT U/..c+1:21 dlrlinn. I I I I I Construction-West i 14: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q 11il.Jinn , I I I I j Paving-East Building 's 6; 40.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT ' 1 I I ' J Architectural Coatings i 4; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+DI,I, • I I I I J Paving-West Building; 6: 40.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT 1 1 , : I i r I- r * - -- T + T Architectural Coatings : 4• 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix 'HHDT \Nnc+1:2If1n 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total _ategory tons/yr MT/yr DJ cn m Off-Road •1 0.0256 I 0.2509 I 0.1776 I 3.5000e- I I 0.0122 I 0.0122 I I 0.0114 : 0.0114 : 0.0000 ' 30.5702 I 30.5702 I 6.8800e- I 0.0000 i 30.7422 N) 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 1 1 N 9 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 1 I 1 Total 0.0256 0.2509 0.1776 3.5000e- 0.0122 0.0122 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 30.5702 30.5702 6.8800e- 0.0000 30.7422 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr ;r I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 Hauling 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I 1 1 1 1 1 : I I : 1 1 T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I T Worker .1 1.7200e- I 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 14.0000e- 14.3900e- 13.0000e- 14.4100e- 11.1600e- 13.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 1 3.5085 I 3.5085 19.0000e- I 0.0000 1 3.5107 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 : I I 1 005 I 1 'I I I I I 1 I 1 I , . I 1 1 1 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I Off-Road �i 0.0256 I 0.2509 I 0.1776 I 3.5000e- I 1 0.0122 I 0.0122 1 i 0.0114 0.0114 � 0.0000 i 30.5701 1 30.5701 I 6.8800e- I 0.0000 i 30.7422 I I I 004 I I I 1 . I I 003 I 1 T 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I I cQ v Total 0.0256 0.2509 0.1776 3.5000e- 0.0122 0.0122 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 30.5701 30.5701 6.8800e- 0.0000 30.7422 CD 004 003 P.) m m CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 3.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.5085 i 3.5085 i 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 003 I : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 I : 005 : 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust ii 1 1 1 i 0.0318 : 0.0000 i 0.0318 : 3.4400e- i 0.0000 : 3.4400e- : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 I I I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 0.0255 i 0.2967 1 0.1645 i 4.3000e- i : 0.0117 i 0.0117 1 i 0.0108 : 0.0108 • 0.0000 37.5379 1 37.5379 i 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 CD q I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I II I I N Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0318 0.0117 0.0435 3.4400e- 0.0108 - 0.0142 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 N W 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 3.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.5085 i 3.5085 i 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 003 I : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 I : 005 : 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 Fugitive Dust ii 1 1 1 i 0.0318 : 0.0000 i 0.0318 : 3.4400e- i 0.0000 : 3.4400e- : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 I I I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 0.0255 i 0.2967 1 0.1645 i 4.3000e- i 1 0.0117 i 0.0117 1 i 0.0108 : 0.0108 • 0.0000 37.5379 1 37.5379 i 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 CD q I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I II I I N Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0318 0.0117 0.0435 3.4400e- 0.0108 - 0.0142 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 N 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 3.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.5085 i 3.5085 i 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 003 I : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 I : 005 : i Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 0.0139 : 0.0000 i 0.0139 : 1.5600e- i 0.0000 : 1.5600e- : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 I I I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 0.0104 i 0.1111 1 0.0766 i 1.5000e- i 15.5400e- i 5.5400e- I i 5.1000e- : 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 1 13.4863 i 4.3600e- i 0.0000 1 13.5953 ci •1 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I i I I IN Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 0.0139 5.5400e- 0.0195 1.5600e- 5.1000e- 6.6600e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 N 01 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 8.2500e- i 0.3078 : 0.0524 i 1.0900e- i 0.0248 1 7.7000e- i 0.0256 : 6.8100e- i 7.4000e- 7.5500e- •• 0.0000 i 105.4147 : 105.4147 i 5.8500e- i 0.0000 i 105.5610 9 003 I I : 003 i : 004 i I 003 I 004 003 . i i : 003 i 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 •I I 1 I I I I I I . I I I I i •I I I I I I I I I • I I I I i ; J J J J J J J J I J J J T Worker 98.6000e- i 6.3000e- : 6.5400e- i 2.0000e- i 2.1900e- : 1.0000e- i 2.2100e- : 5.8000e- i 1.0000e- 6.0000e- � 0.0000 i 1.7542 i 1.7542 i 5.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7554 9 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 Total 9.1100e- 0.3085 0.0589 1.1100e- 0.0270 7.8000e- 0.0278 7.3900e- 7.5000e- 8.1500e- 0.0000 107.1689 107.1689 5.9000e- 0.0000 107.3164 003 003 004 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 0.0139 : 0.0000 i 0.0139 : 1.5600e- i 0.0000 : 1.5600e- •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 I I I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 0.0104 i 0.1111 1 0.0766 i 1.5000e- i 15.5400e- i 5.5400e- I i 5.1000e- : 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 1 13.4863 i 4.3600e- i 0.0000 1 13.5953 (p ;� I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I i I I IN Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 0.0139 5.5400e- 0.0195 1.5600e- 5.1000e- 6.6600e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 N 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 8.2500e- I 0.3078 : 0.0524 I 1.0900e- I 0.0248 1 7.7000e- I 0.0256 : 6.8100e- I 7.4000e- 7.5500e- •• 0.0000 i 105.4147 I 105.4147 I 5.8500e- I 0.0000 i 105.5610 9 003 I I : 003 i : 004 i I 003 I 004 003 . i i : 003 i 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor •I 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000i 0000 •I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1•I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1; J J J J J J J J • I J J J Worker • 8.6000e- I 6.3000e- : 6.5400e- I 2.0000e- I 2.1900e- I 1.0000e- I 2.2100e- : 5.8000e- I 1.0000e- 6.0000e- � 0.0000 I 1.7542 I 1.7542 I 5.0000e- I 0.0000 T 1.7554 •I 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 005 Total 9.1100e- 0.3085 0.0589 1.1100e- 0.0270 7.8000e- 0.0278 7.3900e- 7.5000e- 8.1500e- 0.0000 107.1689 107.1689 5.9000e- 0.0000 107.3164 003 003 004 003 004 003 003 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road • 0.2658 I 2.1099 I 2.5492 I 4.3700e- I 1 0.1106 I 0.1106 I I 0.1092 : 0.1092 •• 0.0000 1 376.9132 I 376.9132 I 0.0415 I 0.0000 i 377.9505 •I I I I 003 I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 T •I 1 1 1 1 I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.2658 2.1099 2.5492 4.3700e- 0.1106 0.1106 0.1092 0.1092 0.0000 376.9132 376.9132 0.0415 0.0000 377.9505 cQ CD 003 P� N) v CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I 1 : I ' I I I Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 -I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I I I Vendor 9 6.6700e- 1 0.2488 1 0.0495 I 1 7.1000e- I 1 0.0170 1 1 3.8000e- 1 0.0174 :1 4.9100e- I 1 3.6000e- 5.2800e- • 0.0000 1 68.0115 :1 68.0115 I 1 4.4600e- I 1 0.0000 i 68.1231 I I I I I I• 003- 1 004 I I 004 : 003 I 004 003 I003 I 1 �I J J J J J J J J • 7 I J J J T I I 1 : I I I I I Worker •1 0.0581 1 0.0422 1 0.4411 1 1.3100e- 1 0.1480 9.4000e- 1 0.1490 0.0393 1 8.6000e- 0.0402 � 1 I I 0.0000 1 118.4104 118.4104 1 3.0800e- 1 0.0000 i 118.4875 1 I- 1 003 I I 004 1 003 I I I I 1 1 Total . 0.0648 0.2910 0.4906 2.0200e- 0.1650 1.3200e- 0.1664 0.0442 1.2200e- 0.0455 0.0000 186.4219 186.4219 7.5400e- 0.0000 186.6105 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr ', I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •I 0.2658 1 2.1099 1 2.5492 1 4.3700e- 1 1 0.1106 1 0.1106 1 1 0.1092 : 0.1092 •• 0.0000 i 376.9128 1 376.9128 1 0.0415 1 0.0000 i 377.9500 I I I 003 I I I I I I I I 1 T -I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 Total 0.2658 2.1099 2.5492 4.3700e- 0.1106 0.1106 0.1092 0.1092 0.0000 376.9128 376.9128 0.0415 0.0000 377.9500 cQ CD 003 P� N) co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •: 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 • I I I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 -I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I I I I Vendor 9 6.6700e- 1 0.2488 1 0.0495 I 1 7.1000e- 1 0.0170 1 1 3.8000e- 1 0.0174 :1 4.9100e- I 1 3.6000e- 5.2800e- • 0.0000 1 68.0115 :1 68.0115 I 1 4.4600e- I 1 0.0000 i 68.1231 I I I I I I I• 003- I 004 I 004 : 003 I 004 003 I003 I 1 �I J J J J J J J J • 7 I J J J I 1 I I I I I I I Worker •1 0.0581 1 0.0422 1 0.4411 1 1.3100e- 1 0.1480 9.4000e- 1 0.1490 1 0.0393 1 8.6000e- 0.0402 .• 0.0000 I I 0.0000 1 118.4104 1 118.4104 1 3.0800e- 1 0.0000 i 118.4875 9 I I I 003 I I 004 I I I 004 . I I I 003 I I •1 1 I I I I I I I , • I I I I 1 Total 0.0648 0.2910 0.4906 2.0200e- 0.1650 1.3200e- 0.1664 0.0442 1.2200e- 0.0455 0.0000 186.4219 186.4219 7.5400e- 0.0000 186.6105 003 003 003 003 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 4 0.1751 I 1.3747 I 1.7892 I 3.0700e- I I 0.0679 I 0.0679 I I 0.0671 0.0671 •• 0.0000 i 265.2390 I 265.2390 I 0.0282 I 0.0000 i 265.9429 I I I 003 I I I I I I I I I T -I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1751 1.3747 1.7892 3.0700e- 0.0679 0.0679 0.0671 0.0671 0.0000 265.2390 265.2390 0.0282 0.0000 265.9429 (.Q CD 003 P-) N) co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I 1 : I ' I I I Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 -I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I I I Vendor 9 3.5400e- 1 0.1350 1 0.0301 I 1 4.9000e- I 1 0.0120 1 1 1.3000e- 1 0.0121 :1 3.4600e- I 1 1.3000e- 3.5800e- • 0.0000 1 46.5437 :1 46.5437 I 1 2.5200e- I 1 0.0000 i 46.6068 I I I I 1 I• 003- I 004 I I 004 I 003 I 004 003 I003 I 1 �I J J J J J J J J • 7 I J J J + I I 1 : I I I I I Worker •1 0.0383 1 0.0267 1 0.2846 1 8.9000e- 1 0.1042 6.4000e- 1 0.1048 0.0277 1 5.9000e- 0.0283 � 1 I I 0.0000 1 80.1971 80.1971 1 1.9400e- 1 0.0000 i 80.2457 I 1 I- I 004 I I 004 I I 1 003 I I I 1 1 Total , 0.0418 0.1617 0.3146 1.3800e- 0.1161 7.7000e- 0.1169 0.0311 7.2000e- 0.0318 0.0000 126.7408 126.7408 4.4600e- 0.0000 126.8524 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr ', I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •I 0.1751 1 1.3747 1 1.7892 1 3.0700e- 1 1 0.0679 1 0.0679 1 1 0.0671 0.0671 •• 0.0000 i 265.2387 1 265.2387 1 0.0282 1 0.0000 i 265.9426 1 I I I 003 I I I I I • 1 1 1 1 T -I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1751 1.3747 1.7892 3.0700e- 0.0679 0.0679 0.0671 0.0671 0.0000 265.2387 265.2387 0.0282 0.0000 265.9426 (.Q CD 003 P-) W 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 9 I I I I I . 1 I I ,I • J J J T Vendor 9 3.5400e- i 0.1350 0.0301 i 4.9000e- i 0.0120 1 1.3000e- i 0.0121 : 3.4600e- i 1.3000e- 3.5800e- • 0.0000 i 46.5437 : 46.5437 i 2.5200e- i 0.0000 i 46.6068 9 003 : : 004 : : 004 : 003 : 004 003 1 f J J J J J J J J • I J J J + Worker •i 0.0383 i 0.0267 0.2846 i 8.9000e- i 0.1042 1 6.4000e- i 0.1048 : 0.0277 i 5.9000e- 0.0283 .• 0.0000 i 80.1971 1 80.1971 i 1.9400e- i 0.0000 i 80.2457 9 : 004 : 1 004 1 1 : 004 1 I I 003 I I Total 0.0418 0.1617 0.3146 1.3800e- 0.1161 7.7000e- 0.1169 0.0311 7.2000e- 0.0318 0.0000 126.7408 126.7408 4.4600e- 0.0000 126.8524 003 004 004 003 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust .1 1 1 i i 0.0239 i 0.0000 i 0.0239 i 2.5800e- i 0.0000 : 2.5800e- : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 0.0255 i 0.2967 1 0.1645 i 4.3000e- i i 0.0117 i 0.0117 i i 0.0108 : 0.0108 • 0.0000 37.5379 1 37.5379 i 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 CD q I I I 004 I I I I I • I I I 1 I I I I IN Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0239 0.0117 0.0356 2.5800e- 0.0108 0.0133 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 CO 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 3.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.5085 i 3.5085 i 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 003 I : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 I : 005 : 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust ii 1 1 1 i 0.0239 i 0.0000 i 0.0239 : 2.5800e- i 0.0000 : 2.5800e- : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 . I I I 1 I I I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 0.0255 i 0.2967 1 0.1645 i 4.3000e- i 1 0.0117 i 0.0117 1 i 0.0108 : 0.0108 • 0.0000 37.5379 1 37.5379 i 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 CD q I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I II I I N Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0239 0.0117 0.0356 2.5800e- 0.0108 - 0.0133 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 Ca N 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I II I I I I I I I I ; J J J .J J J J J •• J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I J J J . f J J J J J ••• J J J + Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 3.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.5085 i 3.5085 i 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 003 : : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust ;i i i i i 6.9600e- : 0.0000 i 6.9600e- i 7.8000e- i 0.0000 : 7.8000e- •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I 003 I I 003 I 004 I 004 . I I I 1 I� • I I l J J J J J J J J J J J Off-Road 9 0.0104 i 0.1111 1 0.0766 i 1.5000e- i 15.5400e- i 5.5400e- I i 5.1000e- : 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 1 13.4863 i 4.3600e- i 0.0000 i 13.5953 �p ;1 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 N Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 6.9600e- 5.5400e- 0.0125 7.8000e- 5.1000e- 5.8800e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 Ca004 003 003 004 003 003 003 W CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 4.1200e- i 0.1539 : 0.0262 i 5.5000e- i 0.0124 1 3.9000e- i 0.0128 : 3.4000e- i 3.7000e- 3.7700e- •• 0.0000 i 52.7073 52.7073 i 2.9300e- i 0.0000 i 52.7805 9 003 I 1 i 004 i : 004 i I 003 I 004 003 . i i : 003 i 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I I • I I I 1 91 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker 9 8.6000e- i 6.3000e- : 6.5400e- i 2.0000e- i 2.1900e- : 1.0000e- i 2.2100e- : 5.8000e- i 1.0000e- 6.0000e- • 0.0000 i 1.7542 i 1.7542 i 5.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7554 9 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 1 I Total 4.9800e- 0.1546 0.0327 5.7000e- 0.0146 4.0000e- 0.0150 3.9800e- 3.8000e- 4.3700e- 0.0000 54.4616 54.4616 2.9800e- 0.0000 54.5359 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 Fugitive Dust ii 1 1 i i 6.9600e- : 0.0000 i 6.9600e- : 7.8000e- i 0.0000 : 7.8000e- : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I 003 I I 003 I 004 I 004 . I I I 1 I I I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 0.0104 i 0.1111 1 0.0766 i 1.5000e- i 15.5400e- i 5.5400e- I i 5.1000e- : 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 1 13.4863 i 4.3600e- i 0.0000 i 13.5953 0 •1 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 I I IN Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 6.9600e- 5.5400e- 0.0125 7.8000e- 5.1000e- 5.8800e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 Ca004 003 003 004 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I I Hauling •i 4.1200e- I 1 0.1539 1 0.0262 1 5.5000e- I 1 0.0124 1 3.9000e- I 1 0.0128 1 3.4000e- •I 1 3.7000e- 3.7700e- I I 0.0000 I 52.7073 1 52.7073 1 2.9300e- 1 0.0000 i 52.7805 9 003 i i i 004 i i 004 i : 003 i 004 003 . i i : 003 i 1 , I I I I I J I J •• I J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 ' I I I I 19 • I I I 1; J J • • I J J J T I I I I I I I I Worker 98.6000e- 1 6.3000e- 1 6.5400e- 1 2.0000e- 1 2.1900e- 1 1.0000e- I I 2.2100e- 1 5.8000e- I I 1.0000e- 6.0000e- •• 0.0000 I 1.7542 1 1.7542 I I 5.0000e- I I 0.0000 i 1.7554 'I 004 I I 1 I 004 I 003 1 005 1 003 1 005 003 I 004 005 004 005 I I I I I I I , 1 1 Total 4.9800e- 0.1546 0.0327 5.7000e- 0.0146 4.0000e- 0.0150 3.9800e- 3.8000e- 4.3700e- 0.0000 54.4616 54.4616 2.9800e- 0.0000 54.5359 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road • 0.2788 I 2.1123 I 2.9751 I 4.9200e- I I 0.1065 I 0.1065 I i 0.1059 : 0.1059 •• 0.0000 I 424.0827 I 424.0827 I 0.0371 I 0.0000 i 425.0093 9 I I I 003 I I I I I I I I I I T 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I I I I 1 Total 0.2788 2.1123 2.9751 4.9200e- 0.1065 0.1065 0.1059 0.1059 0.0000 424.0827 424.0827 0.0371 0.0000 425.0093 cQ CD 003 P� CO 01 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I 1 I ' I I I Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I I I �1 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I I I I Vendor •I 6.1500e- 1 0.2344 1 0.0522 I 1 8.4000e- 1 0.0208 1 1 2.3000e- 1 0.0210 :1 6.0000e- I 1 2.2000e- 6.2200e- • 0.0000 I 80.8390 :1 80.8390 I 1 4.3800e- I 1 0.0000 i 80.9486 I I I I 1 1 I• 003- I 004 1 004 : 003 1 004 003 1003 1 1 �1 J J J J J J J J • 7 I J J J I I I I I I I I I Worker •I 0.0665 1 0.0465 1 0.4942 1 1.5400e- 1 0.1809 1 1.1100e- 1 0.1820 1 0.0481 1 1.0300e- 0.0491 . 1 I I 0.0000 I 139.2896 139.2896 1 3.3800e- 1 0.0000 i 139.3740 -1 I I 1 003 1 I 003 1 I 1 003 • I I 1 003 I I -1 1 1 I I I I 1 I , , 1 1 I I 1 Total 0.0727 0.2809 0.5464 2.3800e- 0.2017 1.3400e- 0.2031 0.0541 1.2500e- 0.0553 0.0000 220.1287 220.1287 7.7600e- 0.0000 220.3227 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr ',Off-Road �1 0.2788 I 2.1123 I 2.9751 I 4.9200e- I I 0.1065 I 0.1065 I I 0.1059 : 0.1059 •• 0.0000 i 424.0822 I 424.0822 I 0.0371 I 0.0000 i 425.0088 I I I 003 I I I I I • I I I 1 T -1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 Total 0.2788 2.1123 2.9751 4.9200e- 0.1065 0.1065 0.1059 0.1059 0.0000 424.0822 424.0822 0.0371 0.0000 425.0088 (..0 CD 003 P-) 0) 0) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I 1 : I ' I I I Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 -I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I I I Vendor 9 6.1500e- 1 0.2344 1 0.0522 I 1 8.4000e- I 1 0.0208 1 1 2.3000e- 1 0.0210 :1 6.0000e- I 1 2.2000e- 6.2200e- • 0.0000 1 80.8390 :1 80.8390 I 1 4.3800e- I 1 0.0000 i 80.9486 I I I I 1 I• 003- I 004 I I 004 : 003 I 004 003 I003 I 1 �I J J J J J J J J • 7 I J J J T I I 1 : I I I I I Worker •1 0.0665 1 0.0465 1 0.4942 1 1.5400e- 1 0.1809 1.1100e- 1 0.1820 0.0481 1 1.0300e- 0.0491 � 1 I I 0.0000 1 139.2896 139.2896 1 3.3800e- 1 0.0000 i 139.3740 1 I- 1 003 I I 003 1 003 I I I I 1 1 Total . 0.0727 0.2809 0.5464 2.3800e- 0.2017 1.3400e- 0.2031 0.0541 1.2500e- 0.0553 0.0000 220.1287 220.1287 7.7600e- 0.0000 220.3227 003 003 003 003 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr ', I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road •I 0.1035 1 0.7813 1 1.1713 1 1.9400e- 1 1 0.0363 1 0.0363 1 1 0.0361 0.0361 •• 0.0000 i 167.0589 1 167.0589 1 0.0141 1 0.0000 1 167.4110 1 I I I 003 I I I I I • I 1 1 1 T -I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1035 0.7813 1.1713 1.9400e- 0.0363 0.0363 0.0361 0.0361 0.0000 167.0589 167.0589 0.0141 0.0000 167.4110 (.Q CD 003 P-) W v CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I ' Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T 1 I 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vendor -1 2.3900e- 1 0.0928 1 0.0198 1 3.3000e- 8.2000e- I 9.0000e- 1 8.2900e- 1 2.3700e- 1 9.0000e- ; 2.4500e- . 0.0000 1 31.8102 1 31.8102 1 1.7300e- 1 0.0000 1 31.8533 -1 003 I 1 1 004 1 003 1 005 003 1 003 005 003 1 1 003 1 1 '1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T .1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Worker .1 0.0247 1 0.0166 1 0.1812 1 5.9000e- 1 0.0713 I 4.3000e- 1 0.0717 1 0.0189 1 4.0000e- ; 0.0193 : 0.0000 1 53.0917 1 53.0917 1 1.2100e- 1 0.0000 1 53.1221 I I' I 004 I 1 004 I I I 003 I I9 I I 1 1.Total 0.0271 0.1094 0.2010 9.2000e- 0.0795 5.2000e- 0.0800 0.0213 4.9000e- 0.0218 0.0000 84.9019 84.9019 2.9400e- 0.0000 84.9754 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 : I I I I I 1 I I Off-Road .1 0.1035 1 0.7813 1.1713 1.9400e- 1 1 0.0363 1 0.0363 1 1 0.0361 : 0.0361 : 0.0000 1 167.0587 1 167.0587 1 0.0141 1 0.0000 i 167.4108 •I I I I 003 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 T '1 1 1 1 1 I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 0.1035 0.7813 1.1713 1.9400e- 0.0363 0.0363 0.0361 0.0361 0.0000 167.0587 167.0587 0.0141 0.0000 167.4108 CD 003 1.) 0) Co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor •i 2.3900e- i 0.0928 0.0198 i 3.3000e- i 8.2000e- : 9.0000e- i 8.2900e- : 2.3700e- i 9.0000e- 2.4500e- • 0.0000 i 31.8102 : 31.8102 i 1.7300e- i 0.0000 i 31.8533 9 003 : : 004 : 003 : 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 1 ; J . J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker •i 0.0247 i 0.0166 0.1812 i 5.9000e- i 0.0713 1 4.3000e- i 0.0717 : 0.0189 i 4.0000e- 0.0193 .• 0.0000 i 53.0917 1 53.0917 i 1.2100e- i 0.0000 i 53.1221 9 I : 1 004 : I 004 I I I 004 I 1 003 I I Total 0.0271 0.1094 0.2010 9.2000e- 0.0795 5.2000e- 0.0800 0.0213 4.9000e- 0.0218 0.0000 84.9019 84.9019 2.9400e- 0.0000 84.9754 004 004 004 003 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 9.8800e- i 0.0953 : 0.1463 i 2.3000e- i i 4.6900e- i 4.6900e- i i 4.3100e- : 4.3100e- : 0.0000 20.0265 : 20.0265 i 6.4800e- i 0.0000 i 20.1885 9 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 •1 I I I I I I I I • I I I I .l J J J J J J J • J J J Paving �� 2.3600e- i 1 i 1 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 CD .1 003 iI II i II II II II II . II II II i N Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1885 Ca004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 9 . 1 I I ,I • J J J T Vendor 9 7.4000e- i 0.0286 : 6.0900e- i 1.0000e- i 2.5200e- : 3.0000e- i 2.5500e- : 7.3000e- i 3.0000e- 7.5000e- • 0.0000 i 9.7878 : 9.7878 i 5.3000e- i 0.0000 i 9.8010 9 004 I : 003 004 003 1 005 1 003 : 004 : 005 004 1 : 004 : 1 Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- : 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 1 003 1 1 005 1 003 1 005 : 003 : 003 : 005 003 1 I 005 i Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 9.8800e- i 0.0953 i 0.1463 i 2.3000e- i : 4.6900e- i 4.6900e- i i 4.3100e- : 4.3100e- : 0.0000 20.0265 i 20.0265 i 6.4800e- i 0.0000 i 20.1884 9 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 q I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 el Paving �� 2.3600e- i , i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 CD .1 003 iI II II II II II . II II II i -F. Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1884 0 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 9 . 1 I I ,� • J J J T Vendor 9 7.4000e- i 0.0286 : 6.0900e- i 1.0000e- i 2.5200e- : 3.0000e- i 2.5500e- : 7.3000e- i 3.0000e- 7.5000e- • 0.0000 i 9.7878 : 9.7878 i 5.3000e- i 0.0000 i 9.8010 9 004 I : 003 004 003 1 005 1 003 : 004 : 005 004 :1 004 : 1 9 1 1 • I 1 I 1 Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- : 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 i 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 I 003 I 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 I : 005 : 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 9 0.8827 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 I I I I IOff-Road 9 7.2300e- i 0.0488 1 0.0724 i 1.2000e- i 12.4400e- i 2.4400e- I i 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 1 10.2130 i 5.8000e- i 0.0000 1 10.2274 0 ;� 003 I II I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 .I II I 004 I i � Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 004 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20___.1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- i 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 003 I : 005 1 003 : 005 : 003 : 003 : 005 003 I : 005 : 1 Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating .1 0.8827 i 1 i 1 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road •1 7.2300e- i 0.0488 1 0.0724 i 1.2000e- i : 2.4400e- i 2.4400e- i i 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 1 10.2130 i 5.8000e- i 0.0000 1 10.2274 (p ;� 003 I II I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 .I I I 004 I i � Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 N 004 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 i 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 003 I : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 I : 005 : 1 Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 9.8800e- i 0.0953 : 0.1463 i 2.3000e- i i 4.6900e- i 4.6900e- i i 4.3100e- : 4.3100e- : 0.0000 20.0265 : 20.0265 i 6.4800e- i 0.0000 i 20.1885 9 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . I I 003 I 1 q I I I I I I I I • I I I I .l J J J J J J J • J J J Paving �� 2.3600e- i 1 1 1 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 CD .1 003 iI II II II II II II II . II II II i � Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1885 W 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I ' Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 .1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . 1 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I : Vendor •1 7.4000e- 1 0.0286 1 6.0900e- 11.000Oe- 1 2.5200e- 13.000Oe- 12.5500e- 1 7.3000e- 3.0000e- ; 7.5000e- i 0.0000 1 9.7878 1 9.7878 15.3000e- 0.0000 1 9.8010 .1 004 1 1 003 004 1 003 1 005 003 1 004 005 004 I 004 1 1 '1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J T 1 I 1 I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : Worker •1 1.5200e- 1 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 14.000Oe- 4.3900e- 13.000Oe- 14.4100e- 1 1.1600e- 12.000Oe- ; 1.1900e- i 0.0000 1 3.2672 1 3.2672 17.000Oe- 0.0000 1 3.2691 •1 003 1 003 1 005 003 1 005 003 1 003 005 003 1 I 1 005 1 1 '1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 , 1 1 I I 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 Off-Road •1 9.8800e- 1 0.0953 1 0.1463 1 2.3000e- 1 14.6900e- 1 4.6900e- 1 1 4.3100e- : 4.3100e- � 0.0000 1 20.0265 20.0265 1 6.4800e- 1 0.0000 1 20.1884 •1 003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 . 1 I I 003 I 1 91 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I I •1 19 J J J J J J J J 0 v1 J J J 1.c0 Paving •i 2.3600e- i i i i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 CD .� 003 I I I I 1 I 1 1 . I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1884 II004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 9 . 1 I I ,� • J J J T Vendor 9 7.4000e- i 0.0286 : 6.0900e- i 1.0000e- i 2.5200e- : 3.0000e- i 2.5500e- : 7.3000e- i 3.0000e- 7.5000e- • 0.0000 i 9.7878 : 9.7878 i 5.3000e- i 0.0000 i 9.8010 9 004 I : 003 004 003 1 005 1 003 : 004 : 005 004 :1 004 : 1 9 1 1 • I 1 I 1 Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- : 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 i 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 I 003 I 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 I : 005 : 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 9 0.8827 i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 I I I I IOff-Road 9 7.2300e- i 0.0488 1 0.0724 i 1.2000e- i 12.4400e- i 2.4400e- I i 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 1 10.2130 i 5.8000e- i 0.0000 1 10.2274 dp ;� 003 I II I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 .I II I 004 I i � Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 004 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I •I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- : 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 i 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 003 I : 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 : 003 : 005 003 I : 005 : 1 Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating �� 0.8827 i i 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road •i 7.2300e- i 0.0488 1 0.0724 i 1.2000e- i 12.4400e- i 2.4400e- I i 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 1 10.2130 i 5.8000e- i 0.0000 i 10.2274 0 ;� 003 I II I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 003 .I II I 004 I i � Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 CS> 004 003 003 003 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20___.1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I II I I I I . I I I I ,� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- 1 0.0112 i 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- i 3.0000e- i 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- i 2.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 i 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 003 : : 005 1 003 : 005 : 003 : 003 : 005 003 : 005 : i Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile v CD IV v CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr m Mitigated •i 0.4455 i 3.0770 i 6.0309 i 0.0274 i 2.2695 i 0.0166 i 2.2862 i 0.6082 i 0.0155 0.6237 : 0.0000 i 2,543.694 i 2,543.694 i 0.1116 1 0.0000 i 2,546.483 '� I I I I I I I I • I 3 3 I I 4 '1 I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 Unmitigated • 0.4455 • 3.0770 • 6.0309 • 0.0274 • 2.2695 • 0.0166 • 2.2862 • 0.6082 • 0.0155 • 0.6237 • 0.0000 •2,543.694•2,543.694 • 0.1116 • 0.0000 •2,546.483 3 3 4 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,419.32 1,419.32 1419.32 5,631,294 • 5,631,294 City Park ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y Parking Lot + 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y f Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall ; 83.03 ; 83.03 83.03 • 329,439 329,439 Total I 1,502.35 I 1,502.35 1,502.35 I 5,960,733 I 5,960,733 404 Trip Type Information m N co CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.90 10.90 : 10.90 40.00 20.00 40.00 100 • 0 0 T City Park ;• 16.60 8.40 I 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 •T 19.00 • 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse 14.70 I 5.90 ? 8.70 40.00 20.00 T 40.00 •• 100 •• 0 • 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator:▪ 16.60 1 8.40 : 6.90 i 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 7 33.00 48.00 T• • • •19.00 • 77 • 19 4 Parking Lot ;▪ 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool ;• 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 33.00 48.00 : 19.00 • 52 •• 39 9 • 4 r • Strip Mall • 10.90 • 10.90 10.90 • 16.60 64.40 • 19.00 • 100 • 0 : 0 • 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 LDT2 I MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303 i 0.181800: 0.111169 i 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365: 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i i i + City Park • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745, 0.035303: 0.181800 i 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365 i 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + General Office Building • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745; 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Hittorical Energy Use: N v m 5.4 Mitigation Measures Energy iv co CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity •i 1 1 i 1 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 575.0523 : 575.0523 i 0.0265 i 5.4800e- 1 577.3461 Mitigated :1 I I I I I I I I ■ II I I I 003 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I . 1 I I • .1 1I'IElectricity •1 i i i 1 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 575.0523 : 575.0523 : 0.0265 : 5.4800e- : 577.3461 Unmitigated :: I I I I I I I I ■ I I I 003 1 •1 1 I I I I I I I . I I I el • J J J NaturalGas •1 0.0209 i 0.1788 : 0.0766 : 1.1400e- : : 0.0145 : 0.0145 : : 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 i 206.9847 : 206.9847 : 3.9700e- : 3.7900e- : 208.2147 Mitigated :1 1 I : 003 : I I I I 1 I : 003 : 003 1 a 1 } } } } } } } } r 1 } } I. NaturalGas •• 0.0209 • 0.1788 • 0.0766 • 1.1400e- • • 0.0145 • 0.0145 • • 0.0145 • 0.0145 • 0.0000 • 206.9847 • 206.9847 • 3.9700e- • 3.7900e- • 208.2147 Unmitigated 003 003 003 0) CD N) at 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 45 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid i 3.83167e•1 0.0207 0.1766 I 0.0751 11.1300e- I I 0.0143 I 0.0143 1 1 0.0143 0.0143 : 0.0000 1 204.4723 1 204.4723 13.9200e- 13.7500e- i 205.6874 Rise I +006 ;i i I 003 I i 1 i I 003 I 003 I t41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 : : : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I ••I 1 I I I I I I I . . I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous 122663.5 •1 1.2000e- 11.0400e- 14.4000e- 11.00OOe- I 18.00OOe- 18.00OOe- I 18.00OOe- 8.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 1.2094 I 1.2094 12.00OOe- 12.00OOe- 1 1.2166 e I ;1 004 003 1 004 005 1 I 005 I 005 I 005 005 . 1 I 1 005 1 005 1 .I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 , I I I I r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 : : : : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator I ; I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office I 17003 .1 9.00OOe- 18.3000e- 17.00OOe- 11.00OOe- I 16.00OOe- 16.00OOe- I 16.00OOe- 6.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 0.9073 I 0.9073 12.00OOe- 12.00OOe- 1 0.9127 Building I ;: 005 004 1 004 005 1 I 005 I 005 I 005 005 . i I I I • 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 005 I 005 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot I 0 .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I .•I I I I I I I I I . . I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; I I I I I I I I I I I 1Swimming Pool I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall 1 7412.58 .1 4.00OOe- 13.6000e- 13.1000e- I 0.0000 I 1 3.00OOe- 13.00OOe- I 13.00OOe- 3.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 0.3956 I 0.3956 11.00OOe- 11.00OOe- 1 0.3979 I •1 005 1 004 1 004 1 I 005 I 005 I 005 005 . I I 1 005 1 005 1 9 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I Total 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1500e- 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 206.9846 206.9846 3.9700e- 3.8000e- 208.2147 003 003 003 0) CO CD fV rr CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 46 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid i 3.83167e•1 0.0207 1 0.1766 1 0.0751 1 1.1300e- 1 1 0.0143 1 0.0143 1 1 0.0143 0.0143 : 0.0000 1 204.4723 1 204.4723 1 3.9200e- 1 3.7500e- i 205.6874 Rise I +006 ;i i I 003 I i 1 1 I 003 I 003 I t41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 : : : 1 1 1 I 1 City Park I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I ••I 1 I I I I I I I . . I 1 I I 1 r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous I 22663.5 .1 1.2000e- 1.0400e- 1 4.4000e- 1 1.00OOe- 1 1 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- 1 1 8.00OOe- 8.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 1.2094 1 1.2094 1 2.00OOe- 1 2.00OOe- i 1.2166 e I ;1 004 1 003 I 004 1 005 I I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 I 1 005 I 005 1 1 .I I I I I 1 1 1 I . I I I I r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking I 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office I 17003 .1 9.00OOe- 8.3000e- 1 7.00OOe- 1 1.00OOe- 1 1 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- 1 1 6.00OOe- 6.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 0.9073 1 0.9073 1 2.00OOe- 1 2.00OOe- i 0.9127 Building I ;: 005 I 004 1 004 1 005 I I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 . i I 1 I 1 • I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 005 I 005 r 41 J J J J J 4 I T I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I ••1 I I I I I I I I . . I 1 I I 1 r 41 J J J J J ., I J J J T I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; I I I I I I I I I I I 1Swimming Pool I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 111 I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall 1 7412.58 .1 4.00OOe- 3.6000e- 1 3.1000e- 1 0.0000 1 1 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- 1 1 3.00OOe- 3.00OOe- I 0.0000 1 0.3956 1 0.3956 1 1.00OOe- 1 1.00OOe- i 0.3979 I •1 005 I 004 I 004 1 I I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 I I 1 005 I 005 1 1 9 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I Total 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1500e- 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 206.9846 206.9846 3.9700e- 3.8000e- 208.2147 003 003 003 0) CO CD fV rr N) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 47 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr I Apartments Mid 1 1.18304e.1 338.0684 1 0.0156 1 3.2200e- i 339.4169 Rise i +006 ;i I 003 I 1 .1 1 City Park 1 0 :i 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i .i i i i Condo/Townhous 1 5642.06•i 1.6123 : 7.0000e- 12.0000e- i 1.6187 e I ;1 : 005 : 005 i i .i i i Enclosed Parking 1 703200 •i 200.9487 : 9.2500e- I 1.9100e- 1 201.7502 with Elevator I :1 003 003 i .i i i General Office i 46648 •i 13.3303 : 6.1000e- I 1.3000e- i 13.3835 Building i ;1 : 004 : 004 i i .i i Parking Lot 1 31640 •i 9.0416 1 4.2000e- 19.0000e- : 9.0776 I :1 1 004 : 005 i .i i Recreational i 0 •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool i ;i 1 1 i i .i i i i Strip Mall 1 42171.6•i 12.0511 1 5.5000e- 11.1000e- i 12.0992 �1 : 004 : 004 1 Total 575.0523 0.0265 5.4800e- 577.3461 003 0) CO CD IV 01 co CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 48 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr I Apartments Mid 1 1.18304e•i 338.0684 1 0.0156 1 3.2200e- i 339.4169 Rise i +006 ;i I 003 I 1 .1 1 City Park 1• 0 :i 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 .� 1 1 J Condo/Townhous i 5642.06•i 1.6123 : 7.0000e- 12.0000e- i 1.6187 e I ;1 : 005 : 005 i i .i i i Enclosed Parking 1 703200 •i 200.9487 : 9.2500e- I 1.9100e- : 201.7502 with Elevator I :1 003 003 i .i i i General Office i 46648 •i 13.3303 : 6.1000e- I 1.3000e- i 13.3835 Building i ;1 : 004 : 004 i i .i i Parking Lot 1• 31640 •i 9.0416 1 4.2000e- 19.0000e- : 9.0776 :1 1 004 : 005 I .1 I Recreational i 0 •i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool I ;i 1 i 1 .1 1 Strip Mall 1• 42171.6•i 12.0511 1 5.5000e- 11.1000e- i 12.0992 �1 : 004 : 004 1 Total 575.0523 0.0265 5.4800e- 577.3461 003 6.0 Area Detail 63 Mitigation Measures Area N.) cn CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 49 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 1.1609 i 0.0849 : 2.7100 i 4.9000e- i i 0.0192 i 0.0192 i i 0.0192 : 0.0192 : 0.0000 i 66.8289 : 66.8289 i 5.4300e- : 1.1400e- 1 67.3059 9 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 003 j 91 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 Unmitigated 1.1609 • 0.0849 • 2.7100 . 4.9000e- • • 0.0192 • 0.0192 • . 0.0192 • 0.0192 • 0.0000 • 66.8289 • 66.8289 • 5.4300e- • 1.1400e- • 67.3059 004 003 003 , 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural . 0.0883 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating .I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I i J J J Consumer 9 0.9851 1 1 1 1 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products I I I I I I I I . I I I I '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 i `i Hearth 9 6.3100e- 1 0.0539 : 0.0229 i 3.4000e- : : 4.3600e- : 4.3600e- : i 4.3600e- 4.3600e- • 0.0000 i 62.4357 : 62.4357 : 1.2000e- : 1.1400e- 1 62.8067 9 003 I I 1 004 : I 003 I 003 I : 003 • 003 . I I I 003 I 003 I DJ '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'i I J J J Tandscaping 9 0.0812 1 0.0309 : 2.6871 i 1.4000e- : : 0.0149 : 0.0149 : i 0.0149 0.0149 : 0.0000 i 4.3933 : 4.3933 : 4.2400e- : 0.0000 i 4.4992 9 I I 004 1 I I : . I : 003 : 1 fV :1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 i Ot Total 1.1609 0.0849 2.7100 4.8000e- 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 66.8289 66.8289 5.4400e- 1.1400e- 67.3059 004 003 003 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 50 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG LNOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0883 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J V I J J J I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Consumer •1 0.9851 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Products :: 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 1 I 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 ; J J J J J J J J V I J J J I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Hearth .1 6.3100e- 1 0.0539 1 0.0229 1 3.4000e- 1 4.3600e- 1 4.3600e- 1 1 4.3600e- 4.3600e- . 0.0000 1 62.4357 1 62.4357 1 1.2000e- 1 1.1400e- i 62.8067 9 003 I I 1 004 I 1 003 I 003 : I 003 003 I I )03 : 003.1 1 1 1 �I J J J J J J J J : I J J J I 1 : : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Landscaping .1 0.0812 1 0.0309 1 2.6871 1.4000e- 1 0.0149 1 0.0149 1 1 0.0149 0.0149 . 0.0000 1 4.3933 1 4.3933 1 4.2400e- 1 0.0000 i 4.4992 .1 I I I 004 I I I I I . I I I 003 I 1 '1 1 I I I I 1 I I . I 1 1 I 1 Total 1.1609 0.0849 2.7100 4.8000e- 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 66.8289 66.8289 5.4400e- 1.1400e- 67.3059 004 003 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water -o v CO CD IV 01 C) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 51 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •i 111.2350 i 0.6110 0.0153 i 131.0754 Unmitigated 111.2350 • 0.6110 • 0.0153 : 131.0754 cO CD 01 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 52 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 1 16.94/ •i 102.3128 1 0.5565 i 0.0140 1 120.3833 Rise I 10.6796 ; .1 1 1 J City Park 1 0/ •1 1.2483 1 6.0000e- 11.0000e- 1 1.2533 10.393189:: 1 005 1 005 i .1 1 Condo/Townhous i 0.065154/•i 0.3935 1 2.1400e- 1 5.0000e- i 0.4630 e i 0.0410754;i 1 003 1 005 i I .l J Enclosed Parking 1 0/0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator .1 1 1 J General Office i 1.35078/•1 5.4547 1 0.0443 1 1.0900e- 1 6.8848 Building i 0 :: I 003 i 1 I .l J Parking Lot 1 0/0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I .l J Recreational 1 0/ •1 0.3453 1 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.3466 Swimming Pool i 0.108747;i 1 005 1 i .1 1 Strip Mall [0.247402/•i 1.4805 1 8.1300e- 1 2.0000e- i 1.7443 i 0.151634;i 1 003 1 004 i I . I I 1 Total 111.2350 0.6111 0.0153 131.0754 0) CO m tV 01 co CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 53 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Apartments Mid 1 16.94/ •i 102.3128 1 0.5565 i 0.0140 1 120.3833 Rise I 10.6796 ; .1 1 1 J City Park 1 0/ •1 1.2483 1 6.0000e- 11.0000e- 1 1.2533 10.393189:: 1 005 1 005 i i .l i i Condo/Townhous 13.065154/•i 0.3935 1 2.1400e- 1 5.0000e- i 0.4630 e 10.0410754:: I 003 I 005 1 I .l J Enclosed Parking 1 0/0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator .1 1 1 J General Office 1 1.35078/•1 5.4547 1 0.0443 1 1.0900e- 1 6.8848 Building i 0 :: 1 003 i .� 1 J Parking Lot 1 0/0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I .l J Recreational 1 0/ •1 0.3453 1 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.3466 Swimming Pool i 0.108747;i 1 005 1 i .1 1 Strip Mall 13.247402/•i 1.4805 1 8.1300e- 1 2.0000e- 1 1.7443 0.151634;i I 003 I 004 I . I I 1 Total 111.2350 0.6111 0.0153 131.0754 8.0 Waste Detail v 89 Mitigation Measures Waste Ni 01 co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 54 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 118.5467 i 7.0059 i 0.0000 i 293.6945 Unmitigated •• 118.5467 : 7.0059 • 0.0000 : 293.6945 0) O CD IV CA CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 55 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid 1 555.83 •i 112.8285 1 6.6680 i 0.0000 1 279.5278 Rise i ;i I I I •l J City Park 1 0.03 •1 6.0900e- 13.6000e- 1 0.0000 1 0.0151 ;i 003 I 004 l I 1 J Condo/Townhous i 0.46 •1 0.0934 1 5.5200e- 1 0.0000 1 0.2313 e i ;i 003 1 I •l J Enclosed Parking 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator ▪l 1 1 J General Office i 7.07 •1 1.4352 1 0.0848 1 0.0000 1 3.5555 Building i • i 1 •l J Parking Lot 1 0 •: 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 J Recreational i 17.1 •1 3.4712 1 0.2051 1 0.0000 1 8.5996 Swimming Pool 1 •▪1 i I •l J Strip Mall 1 3.51 .1 0.7125 : 0.0421 1 0.0000 1 1.7652 •' 1 i Total 118.5467 7.0059 0.0000 293.6945 0) CO CD tV a) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 56 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Apartments Mid i 555.83 •i 112.8285 : 6.6680 i 0.0000 1279.5278 Rise 1 •1 1 1 7l J J T City Park : 0.03 •i 6.0900e- : 3.6000e- i 0.0000 : 0.0151 ;i 003 I 004 -el J T Condo/Townhous i 0.46 •i 0.0934 : 5.5200e- i 0.0000 i 0.2313 e I ;i : 003 -el J J T Enclosed Parking : 0 •i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator I ; J J General Office i 7.07 •i 1.4352 : 0.0848 i 0.0000 i 3.5555 Building i ; I 7l J J T Parking Lot i 0 :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 J J Recreational I 17.1 •i 3.4712 : 0.2051 i 0.0000 i 8.5996 Swimming Pool I ; 7l J J T Strip Mall i 3.51 •i 0.7125 : 0.0421 i 0.0000 i 1.7652 Total 118.5467 7.0059 0.0000 293.6945 9.0 Operational Offroad iiEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type N N 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 57 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation v CD N 07 C.,) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 7.60 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 T 4,900.00 i 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 300.00 + Space ; 0.00 120,000.00 + 0 Parking Lot 226.00 + Space ; 1.80 90,400.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,374.80 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.07 3,000.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 259,000.00 + 741 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 r r + I- Strip Mall 3.34 1000sgft 0.00 3,339.00 0 • • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib01Whr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) v cn CD 14 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data rn Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor" Land Use - See SWAPE comments on "Failure to Model Required Amount of Parking" and "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Us Enclosed Parking= 57% of total, Parking Lot=43% of total parking. CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Construction Phase-Consistent with IS/MND's model Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Architectural Coating -See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Woodstoves -Woodstoves: consistent with IS/MND's model. Fireplaces: See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values" Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Energy Use- Water And Wastewater- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. v cn Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Solid Waste Generation Rates" Taal adds up to 584 tons/year rn Cghstruction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces • FireplaceWoodMass } 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces Y FireplaceWoodMass + T 1,019.20 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 220.15 259.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 0.85 T 1.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 25.90 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 0.10 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 12.95 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 0.05 T 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 60.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 45.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 24.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 12.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 21,180.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 7,600.00 T 4,900.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 1,000.00 T 1,570.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 3,340.00 T 3,339.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.17 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.70 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.03 T 1.80 4 co tblLandUse LotAcreage + 6.82 3.00 CD N tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.06 T 0.00 rn tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.08 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount + 1.00 T 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 4 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblOffRoadEquipment i OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 3.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor * 702.44 630 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 119.14 555.83 t ._Z . a.) tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber * 2,648.00 2,880.00 cc)._a) 4 . N tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber f 1,324.00 1,440.00 ._ey 4 • v tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber f 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 66.00 40.00 4 4 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber • 66.00 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber ,i 15.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 57.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips CC_TL ,i 8.40 10.90 r • tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL f 6.90 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips CW_TL * 16.60 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 40.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL * 8.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TL * 5.90 10.90 ._Z co tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP * 19.20 20.00 ._a) 4 tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP * 19.20 20.00 ._ey co tblVehicleTrips HW_TL * 14.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP * 40.20 40.00 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 6 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips PB_TP f 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP ,i 15.00 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 45.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 6.39 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 22.75 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 5.67 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 2.46 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 9.10 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 42.04 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR ,i 5.86 5.48 r • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR f 16.74 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 4.84 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 1.05 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 13.60 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 20.43 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 6.65 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 1.89 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 5.81 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 11.03 0.00 ._Z4 ca.) tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 33.82 0.00 ._a) 4 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 44.32 24.86 ._ey4 co tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 16,874,892.64 16,940,046.66 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 177,429.43 0.00 4 4 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate • 10,638,519.27 10,679,594.63 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 827,895.26 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic f 12.95 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic • ,i 0.05 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 12.95 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 0.05 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass r 999.60 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary v CO CD N v 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Year lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 2022 •i 4.9826 1 82.5898 1 46.0429 1 0.2561 1 8.2717 1 1.6581 1 9.5368 1 1.8114 1 1.6363 2.9810 : 0.0000 i 26,896.46 1 26,896.46 1 2.2163 1 0.0000 i 26,951.87 •1 I I I I I I I I 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I , 1 57 i 57 1 i 40 :I J J J J J J J J • I J J J T 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2023 .1 4.6469 1 32.2831 1 45.2356 1 0.0955 1 2.4917 1 1.4464 1 3.9381 1 0.6666 1 1.4268 2.0935 0.0000 1 9,283.061 1 9,283.061 1 0.7593 1 0.0000 i 9,302.045 '1 I I I I I I I 1 . 1 8 I 8 1 I I 2 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I I 1 1 :1 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2024 •I 89.1573 1 27.3471 1 43.1163 1 0.0898 1 2.4917 1 1.1320 1 3.6237 1 0.6666 1 1.1243 1.7909 0.0000 1 8,726.729 1 8,726.729 1 0.7790 1 0.0000 i 8,741.208 •1 I I I I I I I I . 1 7 I 7 1 I 1 4 •1 I 1 I 1 I I I I , . 1 I I I 1 Maximum 89.1573 82.5898 46.0429 0.2561 8.2717 1.6581 9.5368 1.8114 1.6363 2.9810 0.0000 26,896.46 26,896.46 2.2163 0.0000 26,951.87 11 57 57 40 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2 5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 2022 •1 4.9826 82.5898 1 46.0429 1 0.2561 1 8.2717 1 1.6581 1 9.5368 1 1.8114 1 1.6363 2.9810 : 0.0000 i 26,896.46 1 26,896.46 1 2.2163 1 0.0000 i 26,951.87 9 1 I I I I I I I . 1 57 1 57 1 I 1 40 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 A '1 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J t '1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 cQ 2023 •1 4.6469 32.2831 45.2356 I 0.0955 1 2.4917 1 1.4464 1 3.9381 0.6666 1 1.4268 2.0935 • 0.0000 19,283.061 9,283.061 1 0.7593 0.0000 T 9,302.045 CD '1 I I I I I I I I ; 1 8 I 8 I I 1 2 ;I 1 I I I I I I I 1 ; I 1 I I 1 y '1 I I I I I I I 1 ' 1 I I I1. N 2024 •1 89.1573 1 27.3471 1 43.1163 1 0.0898 I 2.4917 1 1.1320 1 3.6237 1 0.6666 1 1.1243 ; 1.7909 • 0.0000 1 8,726.729 1 8,726.729 1 0.7790 1 0.0000 i 8,741.208 v 9 I I I I I I I I . 1 7 1 7 1 I I 4 •1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Maximum 89.1573 82.5898 46.0429 0.2561 8.2717 1.6581 9.5368 1.8114 1.6363 2.9810 0.0000 26,896.46 26,896.46 2.2163 0.0000 26,951.87 57 57 40 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG1 NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 0) CO CD lV v N) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I : I 1 1 I 1 1 Area •i 7.0358 1 4.5605 1 23.3317 1 0.0287 1 0.4677 1 0.4677 1 1 0.4677 0.4677 � 0.0000 1 5,544.624 1 5,544.624 1 0.1429 I 0.1009 i 5,578.277 '1 I I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �1 J J J J J J J J V I J J J T 1 I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 1 Energy •1 0.1146 1 0.9797 1 0.4196 1 6.2500e- 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 0.0792 � 1 1,250.200 1 1,250.200 1 0.0240 I 0.0229 : 1,257.629 '1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I . 1 1 I 1 I I I 4 '1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 . I I I 1 1 �1 J J J J J J J J V I J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 Mobile .1 2.8630 1 16.4952 1 37.0284 1 0.1600 1 12.7073 1 0.0913 1 12.7986 1 3.3998 1 0.0851 3.4849 � 1 16,342.15 1 16,342.15 1 0.6809 I i 16,359.17 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 46 46 1 I 74 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 i Total 10.0134 22.0354 60.7797 0.1949 12.7073 0.6382 13.3455 3.3998 0.6320 4.0318 0.0000 23,136.97 23,136.97 0.8478 0.1239 23,195.08 89 89 40 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I : I 1 1 I I I I Area •1 7.0358 1 4.5605 1 23.3317 1 0.0287 1 0.4677 1 0.4677 1 1 0.4677 0.4677 0.0000 5,544.624 1 5,544.624 1 0.1429 1 0.1009 i 5,578.277 '1 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I 1 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . • I I I 1 _A �I J J J J J J J J - J J J Energy •1 0.1146 1 0.9797 I 0.4196 1 6.2500e- I 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 : 0.0792 • 1,250.20011,250.2001 0.0240 1 0.0229 11,257.629 (.0 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 I 1 CD •1 I I I 003 I I I I I . 1 I 1 I I I 4 I I 1 1 I I I I . • 1 1 I 1 ._-a :I J J J J J J J J J J J I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1. v Mobile •i 2.8630 1 16.4952 1 37.0284 1 0.1600 1 12.7073 1 0.0913 1 12.7986 1 3.3998 1 0.0851 3.4849 16,342.15 1 16,342.15 1 0.6809 1 i 16,359.17 C.J •1 I I I I I I I I . 46 1 46 1 I I 74 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I I 1 Total 10.0134 22.0354 60.7797 0.1949 12.7073 0.6382 13.3455 3.3998 0.6320 4.0318 0.0000 23,136.97 23,136.97 0.8478 0.1239 23,195.08 89 89 40 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 -Demolition !▪Demolition 13/5/2022 :4/1/2022 1 5: 20: , , 2 :Site Preparation :Grading I4/30/2022 :5/27/2022 1 51 20: + I , I . i , , 3 -Trenching/Utilites-East Building Site Preparation 14/2/2022 14/15/2022 1 51 10: , , 4 :Construction-East Building :Building Construction 16/25/2022 15/12/2023 1 51 230: + I , I . i , , 5 -Grading :Grading I5/28/2022 16/24/2022 1 51 20 : , , 6 -Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation 14/16/2022 14/29/2022 1 51 10: + I , I . i , , 7 :Construction-West Building :Building Construction I5/13/2023 13/29/2024 1 51 230 , , 8 -Paving-East Building :Paying 13/30/2024 :4/26/2024 1 51 20: + I , I I i , , 9 :Architectural Coatings East Bldg :Architectural Coating I5/25/2024 :6/21/2024 1 51 20: : , , 10 -Paving-West Building :Paying 14/27/2024 :5/24/2024 1 51 20: + 1 I 1 1 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:A▪ rchitectural Coating .6/22/2024 :7/19/2024 5: 20 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Aces of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 sv co Ares of Paving: 1.8 N v Residential Indoor: 527,654; Residential Outdoor: 175,885; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,359; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,120; Striped Parking Area: 12,624 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 11 8.00 81: 0.73 Demolition Excavators ; 1 B.00! 158' 0.38 --+ Demolition Generator Sets ; 2; 4.001 84' 0.74 Demolition Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 2; B.00! 247' 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00i 212' 0.43 --+ Site Preparation Excavators ; 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 --+ Site Preparation Graders ; 1! 8.001 187' 0.41 --4- Site Preparation Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --4- Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --4- Site Preparation +Scrapers ; 1! B.00! 367' 0.48 Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00i 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilites-East Building Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building Excavators ; 1! 8.001 158' 0.38 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 Construction-East Building !Air Compressors ; 10! 8.001 78' 0.48 --.- Construction-East Building +Cranes ; 1! 7.00i 231' 0.29 Construction-East Building Forklifts ; 0 8.00i 89' 0.20 _ Construction-East Building Generator Sets ; 2 8.00i 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-East Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 - , - --1- 7 Castruction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 •-Ga - - --.- Construction-East Building :Welders : 0; 8.O01 46' 0.45 •--.I i ,- - - --4 i Gatling Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 �_ _ _ Grading :Excavators ; 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 * i- Grading :Graders 1: 8.00' 187: 0.41 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • Grading •Rollers 2i 8.00• 80• 0.38 Grading Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0 8.001 247: 0.40 _ Grading Scrapers ; 1! 8.001 367' 0.48 --4- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 8.00197' 0.37 Trenching/Utilities-West Building Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.001 212' 0.43 Trenching/Utilities-West Building Excavators ; 1 8.001 158' 0.38 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --4- Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 --+ Construction-West Building +Air Compressors ; 10! 8.001 78' 0.48 --.- Construction-West Building :Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --.- Construction-West Building Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --.- Construction-West Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-West Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --.- Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 --+ Construction-West Building Welders ; 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 Paving-East Building +Pavers ; 2; 8.00 130' 0.42 Paving-East Building Paving Equipment ; 2 8.00 132' 0.36 a _ Paving-East Building :Rollers ; 2 8.00180' 0.38 Architectural Coatings East Bldg !Air Compressors ; 4; 6.001 78' 0.48 --.- Paving-West Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --+ Paving-West Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 - - --1- Ping-West Building :Rollers ; 2; 8.00 80' 0.38 CD * F Architectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 4' 6.00' 78: 0.48 -1 rn Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 40.001 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT ' I I I ' J Site Preparation 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT 1 I I ' J Trenching/Utilites- 6; 40.00. 0.00 i 2,880.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+Q„il.+inn £ • I I I I j Construction-East i 15: 200.00. 40.00i 0- .00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q„II.JInn , I I I I J -i - T Grading 6; 40.001 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix �HDT_Mix HHDT ' 1 I I ' J -1 - T Trenching/Utilities- 6: 40.001 0.00 i 1,440.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix HHDT U/1,c+Q,dlrlinn. I I I I I j Construction-West i 14: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q„II.JInn , I I I I j Paving-East Building 's 6; 40.00. 40.00i 0- .00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT ' 1 I I ' J Architectural Coatings i 4; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+01,1, • I I I I Paving-West Building; 6: 40.00. 40.00i 0- .00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT 1 1 , : I i r I- r * - -- T + T Architectural Coatings : 4• 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix 'HHDT \Nnc+QIfI-. 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total _ategory lb/day lb/day 0) cn m Off-Road • 2.5643 I 25.0937 I 17.7597 I 0.0351 1 1 1.2177 I 1.2177 I II 1.1441 1.1441 • ' 3,369.785 I 3,369.785 I 0.7586 1 i 3,388.750 N • I I I I I I I I . 1 2 I 2 I I I 3 -I •9 I I I I I I I I , I• I I I 1 Total 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day ;r I I I I I I I 1 I 1 Hauling 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I I 1 I I 1 I 1 : I : I 1 T Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I I 1 I I 1 I 1 : I 1 I 1 T Worker 9 0.1898 1 0.1130 1 1.5212 1 4.2400e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 1 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 1 421.8410 1 421.8410 I 0.0112 1 1422.1203 -I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I 1 I I I I Off-Road .1 2.5643 1 25.0937 1 17.7597 1 0.0351 1 1 1.2177 1 1.2177 1 i 1.1441 : 1.1441 : 0.0000 1 3,369.785 1 3,369.785 1 0.7586 1 i 3,388.750 9 I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I I 3 T 9I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 v Total 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 0.0000 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 CQ CD 2 2 3 P.) v CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i i 422.1203 9 : : : 003 1 : 003 1 : I 003 1 1 I Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust �i i 1 i i 3.1815 : 0.0000 i 3.1815 : 0.3435 i 0.0000 : 0.3435 •• i 0.0000 i 1 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 1 16.4479 i 0.0427 i : 1.1687 i 1.1687 1 i 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i 1 4,171.301 CD q I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 I I I I Iv Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i i 422.1203 91 : : 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 I Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 3.1815 : 0.0000 i 3.1815 : 0.3435 i 0.0000 : 0.3435 •• i 0.0000 i 1 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 1 16.4479 i 0.0427 i : 1.1687 i 1.1687 1 i 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 0.0000 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i 14,171.301 CD q I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 I I I I II Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 0 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i i 422.1203 9 : : : 003 1 : 003 1 : I 003 1 1 I Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 i 2.7847 : 0.3111 i 0.0000 : 0.3111 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 1 15.3206 i 0.0307 i : 1.1084 i 1.1084 1 i 1.0197 : 1.0197 • 2,973.217 1 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i 12,997.257 CD q I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 I I I I II Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 1.6178 i 60.2492 : 9.8639 i 0.2212 i 5.0399 1 0.1540 i 5.1938 � 1.3817 i 0.1473 1.5290 . i 23,501.40:23,501.40 i 1.2436 i i 23,532.49 9I I I I I I I I 9 I I I I I I I . I 69 I 69 I I 1 59 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 1 2.7800e- i 0.4499 : 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i i 422.1203 •� : I 1 003 1 I 003 : I I 003 1 1 I 9 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 Total 1.8076 60.3621 11.3851 0.2254 5.4870 0.1568 5.6437 1.5003 0.1499 1.6502 23,923.24 23,923.24 1.2547 23,954.61 79 79 62 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 i 2.7847 : 0.3111 i 0.0000 : 0.3111 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 1 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 1 i 1.0197 : 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217 1 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i 12,997.257 CD q I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 I I I I I� I Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 N) 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I : I I 1 : I ' : I 1 Hauling 41.6178 1 60.2492 9.8639 1 0.2212 1 5.0399 1 0.1540 1 5.1938 1.3817 1 0.1473 1.5290 i 23,501.40 23,501.40 1 1.2436 1 i 23,532.49 •I I I I I I I I I I 9I I I I I I I I , 1 69 I I I 69 i 59 ,I J J J J J J J • • I J J J T I I : I I 1 : I I : I I Vendor •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 : 0.0000 •I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 •I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 �I J J J J J J J 7 J J J T I I 1 I I 1 : I I 1 I I Worker •1 0.1898 1 0.1130 1 1.5212 1 4.2400e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 1 421.8410 1 421.8410 1 0.0112 1 i 422.1203 •I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . 1 I I I I •I I 1 I I I I I 1 , . 1 1 1 1 1 Total 1.8076 60.3621 11.3851 0.2254 5.4870 0.1568 5.6437 1.5003 0.1499 1.6502 23,923.24 23,923.24 1.2547 79 79 23,954.61 62 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road .i 3.9372 1 31.2581 1 37.7657 1 0.0647 1 1 1.6386 1 1.6386 1 1 1.6182 : 1.6182 . i 6,155.195 1 6,155.195 1 0.6776 1 i 6,172.134 I I I I I I I I , 3 1 3 I I 1 1 T •I 1 I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I 1 Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 cQ CD 3 3 1 P� Co W CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I : I 1 I 1 Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 : I I 1 I Vendor •1 0.0964 1 3.6585 1 0.6711 1 0.0107 1 0.2562 1 5.5600e- 1 0.2617 0.0738 1 5.3100e- 0.0791 • 1 1,129.230 1 1,129.230 : 0.0695 1 i 1,130.966 'I I I I I I l)l)3 I I I 003 . 1 3 I 3 I I 1 6 'I I I I I 1 1 I , . I I I 1 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I • I 1 I I Worker •1 0.9490 1 0.5648 1 7.6061 1 0.0212 1 2.2355 1 0.0139 1 2.2494 •1 0.5929 1 0.0128 0.6057 • 1 2,109.204 1 2,109.204 1 0.0559 1 i 2,110.601 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 8 1 8 1 I 1 4 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I I 1 I 1 Total 1.0454 4.2232 8.2772 0.0319 2.4917 0.0194 2.5112 0.6666 0.0181 0.6847 I 3,238.435 3,238.435 0.1253 3,241.567 2 2 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I Off-Road �i 3.9372 1 31.2581 1 37.7657 1 0.0647 1 1 1.6386 1 1.6386 1 1 1.6182 : 1.6182 � 0.0000 i 6,155.195 1 6,155.195 1 0.6776 1 i 6,172.134 I I I I I I I I . 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 T 'I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 0.0000 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 cQ CD 3 3 1 P� Co CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I : I 1 I 1 Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 : I I 1 I Vendor •1 0.0964 1 3.6585 1 0.6711 1 0.0107 1 0.2562 1 5.5600e- 1 0.2617 0.0738 1 5.3100e- 0.0791 • 1 1,129.230 1 1,129.230 : 0.0695 1 i 1,130.966 'I I I I I I l)l)3 I I I 003 . 1 3 I 3 I I 1 6 'I I I I I 1 1 I , . I I I 1 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J T 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I • I 1 I I Worker •1 0.9490 1 0.5648 1 7.6061 1 0.0212 1 2.2355 1 0.0139 1 2.2494 •1 0.5929 1 0.0128 0.6057 • 1 2,109.204 1 2,109.204 1 0.0559 1 i 2,110.601 '1 I I I I I I I 1 . 1 8 1 8 1 I 1 4 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I I 1 I 1 Total 1.0454 4.2232 8.2772 0.0319 2.4917 0.0194 2.5112 0.6666 0.0181 0.6847 I 3,238.435 3,238.435 0.1253 3,241.567 2 2 9 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I Off-Road •i 3.6862 1 28.9417 1 37.6666 1 0.0647 1 1 1.4301 1 1.4301 1 1 1.4118 1.4118 • i 6,155.283 1 6,155.283 1 0.6534 1 i 6,171.618 I I I I I I I I . 5 1 5 1 1 1 2 T 'I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 cQ CD 5 5 2 P� Co 01 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I : I 1 I 1 Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I 1 I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I 1 I 1 I I I I , . I I I I 1 •I J J J J J J J J • I J J J T I •I 1 I I 1 : I I 1 I Vendor •1 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1 1,097.877 1 1,097.877: 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 'I I I I I I 003 I 1 1 003 . 1 9 1 9 1 I 1 3 'I I I I I I 1 1 , . I I I 1 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J + I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I Worker •1 0.8878 1 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 1 2.2355 1 0.0135 1 2.2490 •1 0.5929 1 0.0124 0.6053 • 1 2,029.900 1 2,029.900 1 0.0500 1 i 2,031.150 '1 I I I I I I I I . I 4 1 4 1 I '1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 7 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I Off-Road •i 3.6862 1 28.9417 1 37.6666 1 0.0647 1 1 1.4301 1 1.4301 1 1 1.4118 1.4118 • 0.0000 i 6,155.283 1 6,155.283 1 0.6534 1 i 6,171.618 I I I I I I I I . 5 1 5 1 1 1 2 T 'I I I I I I I I I , . I , I I 1 • Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 0.0000 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 (..0 CD 5 5 2 P-) Co 0) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building -2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J : I J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Vendor •1 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 1 0.0738 1 2.6100e- ; 0.0764 • 1 1,097.877 1 1,097.877 1 0.0559 1 i 1,099.276 •1 1 I I I 1 003 I I I 003 1 9 1 9 1 I I 3 '1 I I I I I I 1 1 , . I 1 I 1 1 J J J J J J J J . I J J J T 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Worker •1 0.8878 1 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 1 2.2355 I 0.0135 1 2.2490 I 0.5929 1 0.0124 ; 0.6053 • 12,029.90012,029.9001 0.0500 1 I 2,031.150 '1 I I I I I I I I ; 1 4 1 4 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 Fugitive Dust •i 1 1 1 1 2.3861 1 0.0000 1 2.3861 1 0.2577 1 0.0000 : 0.2577 i 1 0.0000 I 1 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I I ' I• 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I '1 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J t °Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 1 16.4479 i 0.0427 i 1 1.1687 i 1.1687 1 i 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 1 4,137.845:4,137.845 1 1.3383 i !4,171.301 CD 9 I I I I I I I I ; . 2 1 2 I 1 i 8 I , I I I I I I • , I I 1 � Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 v 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I 1 I . I I I I 1 9I I I 1 I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J + Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i i 422.1203 9 1 003 1 1 003 1 1 003 1 1 i Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust :i i 1 i i 2.3861 i 0.0000 i 2.3861 i 0.2577 i 0.0000 : 0.2577 •• i 0.0000 i 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 1 16.4479 i 0.0427 i 1 1.1687 i 1.1687 1 i 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 0.0000 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 CD q I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 I I I I II N) Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 Co 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i i 422.1203 9 : : : 003 1 : 003 1 : I 003 1 1 I Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 1.3924 : 0.0000 i 1.3924 : 0.1556 i 0.0000 : 0.1556 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 1 15.3206 i 0.0307 i : 1.1084 i 1.1084 1 i 1.0197 : 1.0197 • 2,973.217 1 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i 12,997.257 CD q I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 I I I I II Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 CO 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.8089 i 30.1246 : 4.9320 i 0.1106 i 2.5199 1 0.0770 i 2.5969 � 0.6909 i 0.0737 0.7645 . i 11,750.70: 11,750.70 : 0.6218 i i 11,766.24 9I I I I I I I I 9 I I I I I I I . I 35 I 35 I I 1 80 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 1 1.5212 i 4.2400e- i 0.4471 1 2.7800e- i 0.4499 : 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 421.8410 1 421.8410 i 0.0112 i i 422.1203 •� : I 1 003 1 I 003 : I I 003 1 1 I 9 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 Total 0.9987 30.2376 6.4532 0.1148 2.9671 0.0798 3.0468 0.8094 0.0762 0.8857 ( 12,172.54 12,172.54 0.6330 12,188.36 44 44 82 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 1.3924 : 0.0000 i 1.3924 : 0.1556 i 0.0000 : 0.1556 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 I 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 I i 1.0197 : 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217:2,973.217 i 0.9616 i 12,997.257 CD q I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 I I I I II Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 0 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I Hauling 40.8089 I 30.1246 I 4.9320 I 0.1106 I 2.5199 I 0.0770 I 2.5969 I 0.6909 I 0.0737 0.7645 • i 11,750.70 1 111,750.70 :I 0.6218 1 I i 11,766.24 'I I I I I I I I I JJII JJ11 JJII JJII JJ11 JJII JJ11 II I I I' . 1 80 I,I J • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 I : 0.0000 0 ' II 1 I I 19 • 1 I I 1MI J • J J J T • Worker •1 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 I 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 421.8410 1421.8410 I 0.0112 I 1 422.1203 '1 I I I 003 II 003 II I 003 1 I I I I I • I 1 1 1 1 Total .0.9987 30.2376 6.4532 0.1148 2.9671 0.0798 3.0468 0.8094 0.0762 0.8857 ( 12,172.54 12,172.54 0.6330 44 44 12,188.36 82 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road • 3.3787 I 25.6032 I 36.0615 I 0.0597 1 I 1.2907 I 1.2907 1 I 1.2835 1.2835 • i 5,666.316 1 5,666.316 I 0.4953 I i 5,678.697i I I I I I I I I , 7 1 7 I I i 8 T 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 (.Q CD 7 7 8 P-) CO 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Hauling •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J • 1 J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Vendor •1 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 I 2.7300e- I 0.2589 I 0.0738 1 2.6100e- ; 0.0764 i 1 1,097.877 11,097.877 1 0.0559 1 11,099.276 '1 1 I I I 1 003 I I I 003 1 9 1 9 1 I I 3 '1 I I I I I I 1 1 , 1 I I I 1 1 J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Worker •1 0.8878 1 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 1 2.2355 I 0.0135 1 2.2490 I 0.5929 1 0.0124 ; 0.6053 i 1 2,029.900 12,029.900 I 0.0500 1 12,031.150 '1 I I I I I I I I . 1 4 I 4 1 1 1 7 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I 1 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I I I I I I Off-Road •1 3.3787 1 25.6032 1 36.0615 1 0.0597 1 i 1.2907 1 1.2907 1 1 1.2835 : 1.2835 � 0.0000 1 5,666.316 1 5,666.316 1 0.4953 1 i 5,678.697 9 I I I I I I I I I 7 1 7 I I 1 8 T '1 I I I I I I I I , I , I I 1 N Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 0.0000 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 0 7 7 8 1.) (0 N) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J : I J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Vendor •1 0.0728 1 2.8328 1 0.5848 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 I 2.7300e- I 0.2589 I 0.0738 1 2.6100e- ; 0.0764 • 1 1,097.877 11,097.877 1 0.0559 1 11,099.276 •1 1 I I I 1 003 I I I 003 1 9 1 9 1 I I 3 '1 I I I I I I 1 1 , • I I I 1 1 J J J J J J J J . I J J J T 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Worker •1 0.8878 1 0.5086 1 6.9841 1 0.0204 1 2.2355 I 0.0135 1 2.2490 I 0.5929 1 0.0124 ; 0.6053 • 12,029.90012,029.9001 0.0500 1 I 2,031.150 '1 I I I I I I I I ; 1 4 I 4 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I I I , • I I I 1 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I Off-Road •I 3.1851 1 24.0403 1 36.0409 1 0.0597 1 1 1.1159 1 1.1159 1 I 1.1093 : 1.1093 1 5,666.182 1 5,666.182 1 0.4776 1 i 5,678.122 '1 I I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 5 T 'I I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I 1 N Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 0 2 2 5 1.) co(0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I I : I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T 1 I 1 I I 1 : I I 1 : I Vendor •1 0.0718 1 2.8460 1 0.5625 1 0.0104 1 0.2562 1 2.7300e- 1 0.2589 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 • 1 1,096.475 1 1,096.475 0.0559 1 i 1,097.873 '1 I I I I I 003 I I 1 003 . 1 9 1 9 1 I I 1 '1 I I I I I I 1 I , . I 1 1 1 1 �1 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 : I Worker •1 0.8353 1 0.4609 1 6.5130 1 0.0197 1 2.2355 1 0.0134 1 2.2489 1 0.5929 1 0.0123 0.6052 • 1 1,964.071 1 1,964.071 0.0457 1 i 1,965.212 'I I I I I I I I I I ' 1 9I I I 1 1 Total . 0.9071 3.3068 7.0755 0.0301 2.4917 0.0161 2.5078 0.6666 0.0149 0.6816 ( 3,060.547 3,060.547 0.1015 5 5 3,063.086 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I Off-Road •1 3.1851 1 24.0403 1 36.0409 1 0.0597 1 1 1.1159 1 1.1159 1 1 1.1093 1.1093 � 0.0000 1 5,666.182 1 5,666.182 1 0.4776 1 i 5,678.122 '1 I I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 5 T 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 • Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 0.0000 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 (..0 CD 2 2 5 P-) CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 '9 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 : 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 91 I : 003 : I 003 1 9 1 9 1 i 1 9 I 1 I 1 . I 1 I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.8353 i 0.4609 1 6.5130 i 0.0197 i 2.2355 i 0.0134 i 2.2489 i 0.5929 i 0.0123 0.6052 • i 1,964.071 : 1,964.071 : 0.0457 i i 1,965.212 9i i i i i i i i 1 6 I 6 I I : 9 Total 0.9071 3.3068 7.0755 0.0301 2.4917 0.0161 2.5078 0.6666 0.0149 0.6816 ( 3,060.547 3,060.547 0.1015 3,063.086 5 5 0 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I i 3 9I I I I I I I • I I I 1 �l J J J J J J J m J J J (..0Paving 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 CD • I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 1 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 CO 01 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 9003 003 1 9 I 9 I I i 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 : 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i 1 393.0426 9I : 1 003 1 : 003 1 I I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 003 003 2 2 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 : i 0.4310 : 0.4310 •• 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I 1 3 9I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 �l J J J J J J J •• J J J cQ Paving 9 0.2358 i 1 i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 i 0.0000 CD 9I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 6> 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 : 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 91 I : 003 : I 003 1 9 1 9 1 i 1 9 I 1 I 1 . I 1 I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 : 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 i 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 9I 1 003 1 : 003 1 I 1 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 003 003 2 2 7 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating .: 88.2672 i i 1i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 : 7.2405 i 0.0119 i : 0.2437 i 0.2437 1 i 0.2437 : 0.2437 • 1,125.792 1 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i 11,127.377 CD q I 1 1 1 I . 2 1 2 1 I I 0 Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 CO v 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 2.6800e- i 0.4498 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i 1 1i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 i 1 1 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 �l J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 1 7.2405 i 0.0119 i : 0.2437 i 0.2437 1 i 0.2437 : 0.2437 • 0.0000 1,125.792 1 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i 11,127.377 CD q I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 0 I I I I II Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 Co 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I •I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I •I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 1 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 9I : 003 : 1 003 : I : 003 1 : 003 : I Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I i 3 9I I I I I I I • I I I 1 �l J J J J J J J •• J J J cQ Paving 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 CD • I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 1 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 CO CO 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 9003 003 1 9 I 9 I I i 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 : 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i 1 393.0426 9I : 1 003 1 : 003 1 I I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 003 003 2 2 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 : i 0.4310 : 0.4310 •• 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I 1 3 9I I I I I I I I • I I I �l J J J J J J J •• J J J cQ Paving 9 0.2358 i 1 i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 i 0.0000 CD 9I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I WO Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 0 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 : 0.5625 i 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- i 0.2589 : 0.0738 i 2.6100e- 0.0764 • i 1,096.475: 1,096.475 : 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 91 I : 003 : I 003 1 9 1 9 1 i 1 9 I 1 I 1 . I 1 I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 : 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 i 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 9I 1 003 1 : 003 1 I 1 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 003 003 2 2 7 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating .: 88.2672 i i 1i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 : 7.2405 i 0.0119 i : 0.2437 i 0.2437 1 i 0.2437 : 0.2437 • 1,125.792 1 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i 11,127.377 CD q I 1 1 1 I . 2 1 2 1 I I 0 Wo Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 2.6800e- i 0.4498 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i 1 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 i 1 1 1 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 1 7.2405 i 0.0119 i : 0.2437 i 0.2437 1 i 0.2437 : 0.2437 • 0.0000 1,125.792 1 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i 11,127.377 Ct) q I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 0 I I I I II CO Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 N 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I MI J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker •i 0.1671 i 0.0922 1 1.3026 i 3.9400e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 392.8143 1 392.8143 i 9.1300e- i 1 393.0426 •1 : 003 : 1 003 : : 003 1 : 003 : 1 1 Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile v 0 CD CO 0 0) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 4 2.8630 i 16.4952 i 37.0284 i 0.1600 i 12.7073 i 0.0913 i 12.7986 i 3.3998 i 0.0851 3.4849 • i 16,342.15 i 16,342.15 i 0.6809 i i 16,359.17 9 I I I I I I I I . 46 I 46 I I 74 '1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 I. } } } } } } } } r 1. 1. 1. r Unmitigated • 2.8630 • 16.4952 • 37.0284 • 0.1600 • 12.7073 • 0.0913 • 12.7986 • 3.3998 • 0.0851 • 3.4849 • 16,342.15• 16,342.15• 0.6809 • • 16,359.17 46 46 74 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,419.32 1,419.32 1419.32 5,631,294 • 5,631,294 City Park ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y Parking Lot + 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y f Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall ; 83.03 ; 83.03 83.03 • 329,439 329,439 Total I 1,502.35 I 1,502.35 1,502.35 I 5,960,733 I 5,960,733 404 Trip Type Information m co 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.90 10.90 I 10.90 40.00 20.00 40.00 • 100 • 0 0 T City Park ;• 16.60 8.40 I 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 •T 19.00 • 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse • 14.70 5.90 ? 8.70 40.00 20.00 T 40.00 •• 100 •• 0 • 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator:▪ 16.60 1 8.40 : 6.90 I 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 7 33.00 48.00 T• • • •19.00 • 77 • 19 4 Parking Lot ;▪ 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 •T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool ;• 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 33.00 48.00 : 19.00 • 52 •• 39 9 • 4 r • Strip Mall • 10.90 • 10.90 10.90 • 16.60 64.40 • 19.00 • 100 • 0 : 0 • 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 LDT2 I MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303 i 0.181800: 0.111169 i 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365: 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i i i + City Park • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + General Office Building • 0.558745" 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745; 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Hittorical Energy Use: N v m 5.4 Mitigation Measures Energy 0 cn CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day m NaturalGas •i 0.1146 i 0.9797 : 0.4196 1 6.2500e- i I 0.0792 i 0.0792 i i 0.0792 : 0.0792 : i 1,250.200: 1,250.200 : 0.0240 i 0.0229 1 1,257.629 Mitigated .1 I I I 003 I I I I I :. 1 I 1 I I 1 4 . I 1 I NaturalGas •• 0.1146 • 0.9797 • 0.4196 • 6.2500e- • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 1,250.200• 1,250.200• 0.0240 • 0.0229 • 1,257.629 Unmitigated 003 1 1 4 0) CO CD W O O CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 44 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid I 10497.7 •1 0.1132 0.9674 1 0.4117 16.1800e- I I 0.0782 I 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 11,235.025 I 0.0237 I 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I .1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 ;1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park i 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I . I 1 I 1 I I .I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I , . I 1 I 1 I r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous i 62.0919 •1 6.7000e- 15.7200e- 12.4300e- 14.00OOe- I 14.6000e- 14.6000e- I 14.6000e- 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 I 7.3049 11.4000e- 11.3000e- i 7.3483 e I .1 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 ■ 1 1 I 004 I 004 i .I I I I I 1 1 1 I , . I 1 1 1 I r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking i 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I ; I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office i 46.5836 •1 5.0000e- 14.5700e- 13.8400e- 13.0000e- I 13.5000e- 13.5000e- I 13.5000e- 3.5000e- 0 1 5.4804 I 5.4804 11.1000e- 11.00OOe- i 5.5130 Building I ;: 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 , i 1 I 1 . I I I I 1 1 1 I , . 1 1 004 1 004 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot i 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 0 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I .I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J ., I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational i 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 0 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall i 20.3084 •1 2.2000e- 11.9900e- 11.6700e- 11.00OOe- I 11.5000e- 11.5000e- I 11.5000e- 1.5000e- 1 2.3892 I 2.3892 I S.00OOe- 14.00OOe- i 2.4034 I '1 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 1 �1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I , I 1 1 005 1 005 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 9) CO CD W O v CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 45 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid I 10.4977 •1 0.1132 0.9674 1 0.4117 16.1800e- 1 I 0.0782 I 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 1 1,235.025 I 0.0237 1 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I •1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 ;1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 , • 1 1 1 1 1 I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park 1 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 I I 1 I ••1 I I I I I I I I , • 1 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J .1 J J -• I J J J -r I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous 10.06209199 6.7000e- 15.7200e- 1 2.4300e- 1 4.0000e- I 1 4.6000e- 14.6000e- 1 1 4.6000e- 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 1 7.3049 11.4000e- 11.3000e- 1 7.3483 e I ; 004003 003005 I 004 I 004 I 004 004 1 1 1 I • 1 004 I 004 i •I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 , • 1 1 1 1 I I : 1 : : 1 : 1 I 1 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 I I 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , • I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office 10.0465836.1 5.0000e- 14.5700e- 1 3.8400e- 1 3.0000e- I 1 3.5000e- 13.5000e- 1 1 3.5000e- 3.5000e- I 1 5.4804 1 5.4804 11.1000e- 11.0000e- 1 5.5130 Building I ;: 004 003 1 003 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 004 004 • i 1 I 1 • 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 , • 1 1 004 1 004 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : : 1 : 1 : : 1 I : I : Parking Lot 1 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 I ••1 I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J . I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational 1 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 Swimming Pool I ,1 I I I I I I I I . I I 1 I 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I r 41 J J J J J I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall 10.0203084.1 2.2000e- 11.9900e- 1 1.6700e- 1 1.0000e- I 1 1.5000e- 11.5000e- 1 1 1.5000e- 1.5000e- • 1 2.3892 1 2.3892 15.0000e- 14.0000e- 1 2.4034 I •1 004 003 003 005 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 005 I 005 i 9 I I I I 1 1 1 I , • 1 1 1 1 1 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 6.0 Area Detail 63 Mitigation Measures Area w 0 09 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 46 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 7.0358 i 4.5605 i 23.3317 i 0.0287 i i 0.4677 i 0.4677 i 1 0.4677 : 0.4677 : 0.0000 •5,544.624 i 5,544.624 i 0.1429 i 0.1009 1 5,578.277 9 I I I • I I I I • I •2 • 2 • I • 1 91 I I • I I • I . I 1 Unmitigated • 7.0358 • 4.5605 • 23.3317 • 0.0287 • • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • 0.0000 •5,544.624•5,544.624• 0.1429 • 0.1009 •5,578.277 2 2 1 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.4837 i i 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 J i 0.0000 : 0.0000 • : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating :1 I .I I I I I ' I I I 1 1 I I I I I I • I • I I 1 v J J J Y. Consumer 9 5.3977 1 1 i 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 • • i 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 Products :: • I I I • I • . I • I I '� • I I I I • I I • Hearth 9 0.5047 1 4.3129 1 1.8353 1 0.0275 1 1 0.3487 1 0.3487 1 1 0.3487 0.3487 : 0.0000 •5,505.882 1 5,505.882 1 0.1055 1 0.1009 :5,538.601 9 DJ • I • • • • I ; . 4 • 4 • • 1 1 .JO •i J J J J J J J J J J J Tandscaping 9 0.6498 1 0.2475 1 21.4964 1 1.1400e- 1 1 0.1190 1 0.1190 1 1 0.1190 0.1190 • • 38.7418 1 38.7418 1 0.0374 1 I 39.6760 9I • I 003 • I I I I • . I 1 I I I Oa 'I 1 I I • I I I I Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 47 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2T Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural • I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i 0.4837 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 Coating •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J a V I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 Consumer •1 5.3977 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 1 1 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Products :: 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 1 I 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �I J J a J a J J a V I J J J T I I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Hearth •1 0.5047 1 4.3129 1 1.8353 1 0.0275 1 0.3487 1 0.3487 1 1 0.3487 0.3487 : 0.0000 1 5,505.882 1 5,505.882 1 0.1055 I 0.1009 i 5,538.601 9 I I I I I I I I . I 4 I 4 I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I �I J J a J a J J a V I J J J T I 1 : : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Landscaping •1 0.6498 1 0.2475 1 21.4964 1.1400e- 1 0.1190 1 0.1190 1 1 0.1190 0.1190 � 1 38.7418 1 38.7418 1 0.0374 I i 39.6760 '1 I I I 003 1 I I I I . I I I I '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 I 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste -o v 91) Operational Offroad co 1 Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 48 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor I Fuel Type 1 Boilers LEquipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 1 11.0 Vegetation v CD W CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 7.60 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 T 4,900.00 i 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 300.00 + Space ; 0.00 120,000.00 + 0 Parking Lot 226.00 + Space ; 1.80 90,400.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,374.80 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.07 3,000.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 259,000.00 + 741 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 r r + I- Strip Mall 3.34 1000sgft 0.00 3,339.00 0 • • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib01Whr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) v cn CD 1 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data N Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor" Land Use - See SWAPE comments on "Failure to Model Required Amount of Parking" and "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Us Enclosed Parking= 57% of total, Parking Lot=43% of total parking. CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Construction Phase-Consistent with IS/MND's model Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment-Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Architectural Coating -See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Woodstoves -Woodstoves: consistent with IS/MND's model. Fireplaces: See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values" Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Energy Use- Water And Wastewater- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. v cn Solid Waste - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Solid Waste Generation Rates" Tpal adds up to 584 tons/year C(°rhstruction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project-San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblFireplaces • FireplaceWoodMass } 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces Y FireplaceWoodMass + T 1,019.20 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 220.15 259.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas + 0.85 T 1.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 25.90 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace + 0.10 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 12.95 T 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood + 0.05 T 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 60.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 50.00 T 45.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 24.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading + 10.00 T 12.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 21,180.00 tblGrading MaterialExported + 0.00 T 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 7,600.00 T 4,900.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 1,000.00 T 1,570.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet + 3,340.00 T 3,339.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.17 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.70 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 2.03 T 1.80 4 co tblLandUse LotAcreage + 6.82 3.00 CD w tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.06 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage + 0.08 T 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount + 1.00 T 4.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 4 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblOffRoadEquipment i OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 1.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount ,i 3.00 0.00 r . tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount f 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount * 1.00 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor * 702.44 630 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate ,i 119.14 555.83 t ._Z . a.) tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber * 2,648.00 2,880.00 ._a) 4 . c tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber f 1,324.00 1,440.00 v' tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber * 66.00 40.00 4 4 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber • 66.00 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 40.00 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber ,i 15.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 57.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber f 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 286.00 200.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 15.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber * 57.00 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips CC_TL ,i 8.40 10.90 r • tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL f 6.90 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips CW_TL * 16.60 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 11.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips DV_TP * 40.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL * 8.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP * 40.60 40.00 • tblVehicleTrips HS_TL * 5.90 10.90 ._Z4 cQ tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP * 19.20 20.00 ._a) 4 c tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP * 19.20 20.00 rn tblVehicleTrips HW_TL * 14.70 10.90 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP * 40.20 40.00 4 4 • tblVehicleTrips HW_TTP 40.20 40.00 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 6 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP f 3.00 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP ,i 15.00 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 r • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP f 86.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP * 45.00 100.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 6.39 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 22.75 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 5.67 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 2.46 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 9.10 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR * 42.04 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR ,i 5.86 5.48 r • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR f 16.74 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 4.84 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 1.05 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 13.60 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR * 20.43 24.86 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 6.65 5.48 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 1.89 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 5.81 0.00 • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 11.03 0.00 ._Z4 ca.) tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 33.82 0.00 ._a) 4 c tblVehicleTrips WD_TR * 44.32 24.86 v tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 16,874,892.64 16,940,046.66 • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate * 177,429.43 0.00 4 4 • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate • 10,638,519.27 10,679,594.63 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 827,895.26 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic f 12.95 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic • ,i 0.05 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 12.95 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic f 0.05 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear * 25.00 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass r 999.60 0.00 r • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary v CO CD w CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Year lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 2022 •i 4.9932 1 82.6995 1 44.7823 1 0.2498 1 8.2717 1 1.6582 1 9.5391 1 1.8114 1 1.6365 2.9832 � 0.0000 i 26,230.58 1 26,230.58 1 2.3224 1 0.0000 i 26,288.64 •1 I I I I I I I I . 1 29 1 29 1 I 1 33 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I 1 1 1 :1 J J J J J J J J •• 1 J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 2023 .1 4.6581 1 32.2705 1 44.0472 1 0.0930 1 2.4917 1 1.4465 1 3.9382 1 0.6666 1 1.4269 : 2.0936 0.0000 1 9,032.143 1 9,032.143 1 0.7591 1 0.0000 i 9,051.121 '1 I I I I I I I 1 . 1 8 I 8 1 I 1 5'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I I 1 :1 J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2024 •1 89.1591 1 27.3329 1 42.0026 1 0.0873 1 2.4917 1 1.1321 1 3.6238 1 0.6666 1 1.1243 : 1.7910 0.0000 1 8,483.069 1 8,483.069 1 0.7838 1 0.0000 i 8,497.557 •1 I I I I I I I 1 . 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 3 •1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 , . 1 I I 1 Maximum 89.1591 82.6995 44.7823 0.2498 8.2717 1.6582 9.5391 1.8114 1.6365 2.9832 0.0000 26,230.58 26,230.58 2.3224 0.0000 26,288.64 11 29 29 33 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2 5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day 2022 4 4.9932 1 82.6995 I 44.7823 I 0.2498 1 8.2717 I 1.6582 I 9.5391 1 1.8114 I 1.6365 2.9832 : 0.0000 i 26,230.58 I 26,230.58 I 2.3224 I 0.0000 i 26,288.64 9 1 I I I I I I I . 1 29 1 29 1 I I 33 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 .-MI. '1 J J J J J J J J .. I J J J t '1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I I c2) 2023 .1 4.6581 32.2705 1 44.0472 1 0.0930 I 2.4917 I 1.4465 1 3.9382 I 0.6666 1 1.4269 ; 2.0936 • 0.0000 19,032.143 9,032.143 1 0.7591 I 0.0000 T 9,051.121 I I I I I I I I ; . : 8 1 8 1 I I 5 •1 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ..s J J J J J J J J J J J1. W 2024 .1 89.1591 1 27.3329 42.0026 1 0.0873 1 2.4917 1 1.1321 1 3.6238 0.6666 1 1.1243 ; 1.7910 ■ 0.0000 i 8,483.069 8,483.069 1 0.7838 1 0.0000 18,497.557 1 1 I I I I 1 I . 1 I I '1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I . I 3 CO '1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 , . 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 Maximum 89.1591 82.6995 44.7823 0.2498 8.2717 1.6582 9.5391 1.8114 1.6365 2.9832 0.0000 26,230.58 26,230.58 2.3224 0.0000 26,288.64 - 29 29 33 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 0) CO CD 0.) N O CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I : I 1 1 I 1 1 Area •i 7.0358 1 4.5605 1 23.3317 1 0.0287 1 0.4677 1 0.4677 1 1 0.4677 0.4677 � 0.0000 1 5,544.624 1 5,544.624 1 0.1429 I 0.1009 i 5,578.277 '1 I I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �1 J J J J J J J J V I J J J T 1 I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 1 Energy •1 0.1146 1 0.9797 1 0.4196 1 6.2500e- 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 0.0792 � 1 1,250.200 1 1,250.200 1 0.0240 I 0.0229 : 1,257.629 '1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I . 1 1 I 1 I I I 4 '1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 . I 1 I 1 1 �1 J J J J J J J J V I J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 Mobile .1 2.4971 1 16.5393 1 32.0045 1 0.1477 1 12.7073 1 0.0917 1 12.7990 1 3.3998 1 0.0855 3.4853 � 1 15,111.76 1 15,111.76 1 0.6865 I i 15,128.93 '1 I I I I I I I I I .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 81 1 81 : 1 1 14 Total 9.6475 22.0795 55.7558 0.1827 12.7073 0.6387 13.3459 3.3998 0.6324 4.0323 0.0000 21,906.59 21,906.59 0.8534 0.1239 21,964.83 24 24 79 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I Area •1 7.0358 1 4.5605 1 23.3317 1 0.0287 1 1 0.4677 1 0.4677 1 1 0.4677 0.4677 0.0000 5,544.624 1 5,544.624 1 0.1429 1 0.1009 i 5,578.277 '1 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I 1 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . • I I I 1 _A �I J J J J J J J J - J J J Energy .1 0.1146 1 0.9797 1 0.4196 1 6.2500e- 1 1 0.0792 1 0.0792 1 1 0.0792 : 0.0792 • 1,250.20011,250.2001 0.0240 1 0.0229 1 1,257.629 (.0 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 I 1 CD •1 I I I 003 I I I I I . 1 I 1 I I I 4 I I 1 1 I I I I . • 1 1 I 1 .-.a �I J J J J J J J J J J J I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I CO Mobile .1 2.4971 1 16.5393 1 32.0045 1 0.1477 1 12.7073 1 0.0917 1 12.7990 1 3.3998 1 0.0855 3.4853 . 15,111.76 1 15,111.76 1 0.6865 1 i 15,128.93 •1 1 I I I I I I I . 81 I 81 I I I 14 1 1 I I I 1 1 I , . 1 I I 1 Total 9.6475 22.0795 55.7558 0.1827 12.7073 0.6387 13.3459 3.3998 0.6324 4.0323 0.0000 21,906.59 21,906.59 0.8534 0.1239 21,964.83 24 24 79 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 -Demolition !▪Demolition 13/5/2022 :4/1/2022 1 5: 20: , , 2 :Site Preparation :Grading I4/30/2022 :5/27/2022 1 51 20: + I , I . i , , 3 -Trenching/Utilites-East Building Site Preparation 14/2/2022 14/15/2022 1 51 10: , , 4 :Construction-East Building :Building Construction 16/25/2022 15/12/2023 1 51 230: + I , I . i , , 5 -Grading :Grading I5/28/2022 16/24/2022 1 51 20 : , , 6 -Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation 14/16/2022 14/29/2022 1 51 10: + I , I . i , , 7 :Construction-West Building :Building Construction I5/13/2023 13/29/2024 1 51 230 , , 8 -Paving-East Building :Paying 13/30/2024 :4/26/2024 1 51 20: + I , I I i , , 9 :Architectural Coatings East Bldg :Architectural Coating I5/25/2024 :6/21/2024 1 51 20: : , , 10 -Paving-West Building :Paying 14/27/2024 :5/24/2024 1 51 20: + 1 I 1 1 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:A▪ rchitectural Coating .6/22/2024 :7/19/2024 5: 20 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Aces of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 sv co Ares of Paving: 1.8 w N.) Rb idential Indoor: 527,654; Residential Outdoor: 175,885; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,359; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,120; Striped Parking Area: 12,624 (Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 11 8.00 81: 0.73 Demolition Excavators ; 1 B.00! 158' 0.38 --+ Demolition Generator Sets ; 2; 4.001 84' 0.74 Demolition Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 2; B.00! 247' 0.40 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00i 212' 0.43 --+ Site Preparation Excavators ; 0; 8.001 158' 0.38 --+ Site Preparation Graders ; 1! 8.001 187' 0.41 --4- Site Preparation Rollers ; 2; 8.001 80' 0.38 --4- Site Preparation Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --4- Site Preparation +Scrapers ; 1! B.00! 367' 0.48 Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00i 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilites-East Building Crawler Tractors ; 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building Excavators ; 1! 8.001 158' 0.38 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 --.- Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 Construction-East Building !Air Compressors ; 10! 8.001 78' 0.48 --.- Construction-East Building +Cranes ; 1! 7.00i 231' 0.29 Construction-East Building Forklifts ; 0 8.00i 89' 0.20 _ Construction-East Building Generator Sets ; 2 8.00i 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-East Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 - , - --1- 7 Castruction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 •-Ga - - --.- Construction-East Building :Welders : 0; 8.O01 46' 0.45 co .•-r.1 ,- - - --' 7 GRailing +Crawler Tractors , 2; 8.001 212' 0.43 �_ _ _ -+ Grading :Excavators ; 0; 8.00i 158' 0.38 * i- Grading :Graders 1: 8.00' 187: 0.41 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • Grading •Rollers 2i 8.00• 80• 0.38 Grading Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0 8.001 247: 0.40 _ Grading Scrapers ; 1! 8.001 367' 0.48 --4- Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 8.00197' 0.37 Trenching/Utilities-West Building Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.001 212' 0.43 Trenching/Utilities-West Building Excavators ; 1 8.001 158' 0.38 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0; 8.001 247' 0.40 --4- Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1! 8.001 97' 0.37 --+ Trenching/Utilities-West Building Trenchers ; 2; 8.001 78' 0.50 --+ Construction-West Building +Air Compressors ; 10! 8.001 78' 0.48 --.- Construction-West Building :Cranes ; 0; 7.001 231' 0.29 --.- Construction-West Building Forklifts ; 0; 8.001 89' 0.20 --.- Construction-West Building Generator Sets ; 2; 8.001 84' 0.74 --+ Construction-West Building Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2; 8.001 100' 0.40 --.- Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0; 7.001 97' 0.37 --+ Construction-West Building Welders ; 0; 8.001 46' 0.45 Paving-East Building +Pavers ; 2; 8.00 130' 0.42 Paving-East Building Paving Equipment ; 2 8.00 132' 0.36 a _ Paving-East Building :Rollers ; 2 8.00180' 0.38 Architectural Coatings East Bldg !Air Compressors ; 4; 6.001 78' 0.48 --.- Paving-West Building Pavers ; 2; 8.001 130' 0.42 --+ Paving-West Building Paving Equipment ; 2; 8.001 132' 0.36 - - --1- Ping-West Building :Rollers ; 2; 8.00 80' 0.38 CD * F Architectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 4' 6.00' 78: 0.48 CO IQ Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 40.001 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT ' I I I ' J Site Preparation 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT 1 I I ' J Trenching/Utilites- 6; 40.00. 0.00 i 2,880.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+Q„il.+inn £ • I I I I j Construction-East i 15: 200.00. 40.00i 0- .00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q„II.JInn , I I I I J -i - T Grading 6; 40.001 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix �HDT_Mix HHDT ' 1 I I ' J -1 - T Trenching/Utilities- 6: 40.001 0.00 i 1,440.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix HHDT U/1,c+Q,dlrlinn. I I I I I Construction-West i 14: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix T £ HHDT Q„II.JInn , I I I I j Paving-East Building 's 6; 40.00. 40.00i 0- .00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT ' 1 I I ' J Architectural Coatings i 4; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1 HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc+DI,I, • I I I I J Paving-West Building; 6: 40.00. 40.00i 0- .00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix 1HDT_Mix THHDT 1 1 , : I I I- r * - -- T + T Architectural Coatings : 4• 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70' 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix 'HDT_Mix 'HHDT \Nnc+1:2If1n 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total _ategory lb/day lb/day DO cn m Off-Road • 2.5643 I 25.0937 I 17.7597 I 0.0351 1 1 1.2177 I 1.2177 I II 1.1441 1.1441 • ' 3,369.785 I 3,369.785 I 0.7586 1 i 3,388.750 CO •1 1 I I I I I I I . 1 2 I 2 I I 1 3 Hi Iv 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 Total 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 1 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day ;r I I I I I I I 1 I 1 Hauling 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I I 1 I I 1 I 1 : I : I 1 T Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J •I I 1 I I 1 I 1 : I 1 I 1 T Worker 9 0.1907 1 0.1188 1 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 1 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 1 378.4584 1 378.4584 I 9.8100e- 1 i 378.7036 -I I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 . I I I 003 I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total .11 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I 1 I I I I Off-Road .1 2.5643 1 25.0937 1 17.7597 1 0.0351 1 1 1.2177 1 1.2177 1 i 1.1441 : 1.1441 : 0.0000 1 3,369.785 1 3,369.785 1 0.7586 1 i 3,388.750 9 I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I I 3 T 9I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 v Total 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 0.0000 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 CQ CD 2 2 3 C) m C) CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 3.1815 : 0.0000 i 3.1815 : 0.3435 i 0.0000 : 0.3435 •• i 0.0000 i 1 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 1 16.4479 i 0.0427 i 1 1.1687 i 1.1687 1 i 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i 1 4,171.301 CD q I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 N Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 v 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 3.1815 : 0.0000 i 3.1815 : 0.3435 i 0.0000 : 0.3435 •• i 0.0000 i 1 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 1 16.4479 i 0.0427 i : 1.1687 i 1.1687 1 i 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 0.0000 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i 14,171.301 CD q I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 I I I I II N Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 Co 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 l 003 1 I Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 i 2.7847 : 0.3111 i 0.0000 : 0.3111 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 1 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 1 i 1.0197 : 1.0197 • 2,973.217 1 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i 12,997.257 Cr. q I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 I I I I II N Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 co 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 1.6919 i 60.3531 11.2441 i 0.2153 i 5.0399 0.1562 i 5.1961 1.3817 i 0.1495 1.5312 • i 22,878.90 22,878.90 i 1.3510 i i 22,912.68 9 I I I I I I I I 9I I I I I I I . I 67 I 67 I I 1 19 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 91 I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker •i 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 9I : 1 003 1 : 003 1 : I 003 I 1 003 I I Total 1.8826 60.4719 12.4898 0.2191 5.4870 0.1590 5.6460 1.5003 0.1520 1.6524 23,257.36 23,257.36 1.3608 23,291.38 51 51 55 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 i 2.7847 : 0.3111 i 0.0000 : 0.3111 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 1 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 1 i 1.0197 : 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217 1 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i 12,997.257 CD q I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 I I I I II CC) Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 0 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I Hauling 41.6919 1 60.3531 1 11.2441 1 0.2153 1 5.0399 1 0.1562 1 5.1961 1 1.3817 1 0.1495 1.5312 : I 1 i 22,878.90 22,878.90 1 1.3510 1 i 22,912.68 'I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I , 1 67 I I I 67 i 19 ,I J J J J J J J J • • I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I : I I Vendor •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 : 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I 1 I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J • J J J T I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I • I 1 I I Worker •1 0.1907 1 0.1188 1 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- 1 0.4499 1 0.1186 1 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 1 378.4584 1 378.4584 1 9.8100e- 1 i 378.7036 '1 1 I 1 003 1 I 003 1 I I 003 . I I 1 003 I I 'I 1 1 I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.8826 60.4719 12.4898 0.2191 5.4870 0.1590 5.6460 1.5003 0.1520 1.6524 23,257.36 23,257.36 1.3608 51 51 23,291.38 55 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I I I I I Off-Road 4 3.9372 1 31.2581 1 37.7657 1 0.0647 1 1 1.6386 1 1.6386 1 1 1.6182 : 1.6182 . i 6,155.195 1 6,155.195 1 0.6776 1 i 6,172.134 I I I I I I I I , 3 1 3 I I 1 1 T 'I 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 cQ CD 3 3 1 U CO 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I : I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 : I I 1 : I Vendor •1 0.1024 1 3.6155 1 0.7882 1 0.0103 1 0.2562 1 5.7200e- 1 0.2619 0.0738 1 5.4700e- 0.0792 • 1 1,085.025 1 1,085.025 0.0771 1 i 1,086.952 '1 I I I I 1 003 1 1 I 003 . 1 0 1 0 I I 1 4 'I I I I I 1 I 1 I . I 1 1 1 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 : I Worker •1 0.9535 1 0.5937 1 6.2284 1 0.0190 1 2.2355 1 0.0139 1 2.2494 1 0.5929 1 0.0128 0.6057 • 1 1,892.292 1 1,892.292 0.0490 1 i 1,893.518 1' p I p I 1 0 ' . I 1 I 1 1 Total . 1.0559 4.2092 7.0166 0.0293 2.4917 0.0196 2.5113 0.6666 0.0183 0.6849 2,977.317 2,977.317 0.1261 0 0 2,980.470 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day : : : 1 : : : I I I : Off-Road �i 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1 1.6386 1.6386 1 1.6182 : 1.6182 � 0.0000 i 6,155.195 1 6,155.195 1 0.6776 i 6,172.134 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 3 1 3 1 I 1 1 T 'I 1 I I I I I I I , . I , I I 1 Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 0.0000 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 (..0 CD 3 3 1 U CO N CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I : I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 : I I 1 : I Vendor •1 0.1024 1 3.6155 1 0.7882 1 0.0103 1 0.2562 1 5.7200e- 1 0.2619 0.0738 1 5.4700e- 0.0792 • 1 1,085.025 1 1,085.025 0.0771 1 i 1,086.952 '1 I I I I 1 003 1 1 I 003 . 1 0 1 0 I I 1 4 'I I I I I 1 I 1 I . I 1 1 1 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 : I Worker •1 0.9535 1 0.5937 1 6.2284 1 0.0190 1 2.2355 1 0.0139 1 2.2494 1 0.5929 1 0.0128 0.6057 • 1 1,892.292 1 1,892.292 0.0490 1 i 1,893.518 1'I p I p I 1 0 'I . I 1 I 1 1 Total . 1.0559 4.2092 7.0166 0.0293 2.4917 0.0196 2.5113 0.6666 0.0183 0.6849 2,977.317 2,977.317 0.1261 0 0 2,980.470 4 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I Off-Road •i 3.6862 1 28.9417 1 37.6666 1 0.0647 1 1 1.4301 1 1.4301 1 1 1.4118 1.4118 • i 6,155.283 1 6,155.283 1 0.6534 1 i 6,171.618 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 5 1 5 1 I i 2 T 'I 1 I I I I I I I , . I , I I 1 Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 (..0 CD 5 5 2 U CO W CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I : I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T I I 1 I I 1 : I I 1 : I Vendor •I 0.0772 1 2.7944 1 0.6705 1 0.0100 1 0.2562 1 2.8300e- 1 0.2590 0.0738 1 2.7100e- 0.0765 • 1 1,055.593 1 1,055.593 0.0618 1 i 1,057.137 'I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 1 4 I 4 I I 1 7 'I I I I I I I 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J + I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 : I Worker •1 0.8947 1 0.5344 1 5.7101 1 0.0183 1 2.2355 1 0.0135 1 2.2490 1 0.5929 1 0.0124 0.6053 • 1 1,821.266 1 1,821.266 0.0440 1 i 1,822.365 'I I ' 1 7 1 1 1 1 Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 I 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2 2 2,879.503 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I 1 I I I I Off-Road •i 3.6862 1 28.9417 1 37.6666 1 0.0647 1 1 1.4301 1 1.4301 1 1 1.4118 1.4118 • 0.0000 i 6,155.283 1 6,155.283 1 0.6534 1 i 6,171.618 I I I I I I I I , 5 1 5 I I I 2 T 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I , I I 1 Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 0.0000 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 cQ CD 5 5 2 U CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 '9 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0772 i 2.7944 0.6705 i 0.0100 i 0.2562 1 2.8300e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.7100e- 0.0765 • i 1,055.593: 1,055.593 : 0.0618 i i 1,057.137 9003 003 1 4 I 4 I I 1 7 91 1 . I 1 1 1 1 f J J J J J J J J • J J J + Worker 9 0.8947 i 0.5344 5.7101 i 0.0183 i 2.2355 i 0.0135 i 2.2490 : 0.5929 i 0.0124 0.6053 • i 1,821.266: 1,821.266 : 0.0440 i i 1,822.365 9 . 8 I 8 I I 1 7 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 I 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 2 2 3 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust :i i 1 i i 2.3861 i 0.0000 i 2.3861 i 0.2577 i 0.0000 : 0.2577 •• i 0.0000 i 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�I J J J J J J J J • J J J Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 I 16.4479 i 0.0427 i I 1.1687 i 1.1687 : i 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 4,137.845:4,137.845 i 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 CD q 1 I 1 1 I . 2 : 2 : I i 8 W Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 01 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I •I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 f J J J J J J J J • I J J J + Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 1 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 1 2.7800e- i 0.4499 : 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 9 I 1 003 1 1 003 1 1 : 003 1 : 003 : i Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 I : 1 Fugitive Dust 9 i 1 i : 2.3861 : 0.0000 i 2.3861 : 0.2577 : 0.0000 : 0.2577 : i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 1 16.4479 i 0.0427 i : 1.1687 i 1.1687 1 i 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 0.0000 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 i 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 CD q I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 8 I CC) Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 6S 2 2 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- i 0.4499 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 l 003 1 I Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 1.3924 : 0.0000 i 1.3924 : 0.1556 i 0.0000 : 0.1556 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 1 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 1 i 1.0197 : 1.0197 • 2,973.217 1 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i 12,997.257 Cr. q I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 I I I I II CC) Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 v 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.8459 i 30.1766 : 5.6221 i 0.1077 i 2.5199 1 0.0781 i 2.5981 � 0.6909 i 0.0747 0.7656 � i 11,439.45: 11,439.45 i 0.6755 i i 11,456.34 9I I I I I I I I 9 I I I I I I I . I 34 I 34 I I 1 10 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 i 3.8000e- i 0.4471 1 2.7800e- i 0.4499 : 0.1186 i 2.5600e- 0.1211 • i 378.4584 1 378.4584 i 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 9I I 1 003 1 I 003 : I I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 1.0366 30.2953 6.8677 0.1115 2.9671 0.0809 3.0479 0.8094 0.0773 0.8867 ( 11,817.91 11,817.91 0.6853 11,835.04 18 18 46 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total l Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust ii i 1 i i 1.3924 : 0.0000 i 1.3924 : 0.1556 i 0.0000 : 0.1556 •• i 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 1 15.3206 i 0.0307 i i 1.1084 i 1.1084 1 i 1.0197 : 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217 1 2,973.217 i 0.9616 i 12,997.257 Cr. q I I I I I I I I . 8 I 8 I I I 8 I I I I II CC) Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 Co 8 8 8 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 I I 1 I 1 I Hauling 40.8459 I 30.1766 I 5.6221 I 0.1077 I 2.5199 I 0.0781 I 2.5981 I 0.6909 I 0.0747 0.7656 • 1 11,439.45 1 111,439.45 I I 0.6755 1 I i 11,456.34 'I I I I I I I I I JJII JJ11 JJII JJII1 JJ11 JJII1 JJ11 II I I I' . 1 10 I,I J • J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 I : 0.0000 0 ' II 1 I I 19 . 1 I I 1MI J • J J J T • Worker •1 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 I 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 378.4584 1 378.4584 I 9.8100e- I i 378.7036 6 ' 003 I 003 I I 003 I ' I . 1 003 I I1 1 1 Total . 1.0366 30.2953 6.8677 0.1115 2.9671 0.0809 3.0479 0.8094 0.0773 0.8867 ( 11,817.91 11,817.91 0.6853 18 18 11,835.04 46 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road • 3.3787 I 25.6032 I 36.0615 I 0.0597 1 I 1.2907 I 1.2907 1 I 1.2835 1.2835 • i 5,666.316 1 5,666.316 I 0.4953 I i 5,678.697i I I I I I I I I , 7 1 7 I I 1 8 T 'I 1 I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I 1 • Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 CO CD 7 7 8 C4 CO CO CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I : I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T 1 I 1 I I 1 : I I 1 : I Vendor •I 0.0772 1 2.7944 1 0.6705 1 0.0100 1 0.2562 1 2.8300e- 1 0.2590 0.0738 1 2.7100e- 0.0765 • 1 1,055.593 1 1,055.593 0.0618 1 i 1,057.137 '1 I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 1 4 I 4 I 1 1 7 '1 I I I I I I 1 I . I 1 1 1 1 �1 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 : I Worker •1 0.8947 1 0.5344 1 5.7101 1 0.0183 1 2.2355 1 0.0135 1 2.2490 1 0.5929 1 0.0124 0.6053 • 1 1,821.266 1 1,821.266 0.0440 1 i 1,822.365 'I I I I I I I I I I ' 1 7 I I 1 1 Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 I 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2 2 2,879.503 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I 1 I I 1 I I I I Off-Road •1 3.3787 1 25.6032 1 36.0615 1 0.0597 1 1 1.2907 1 1.2907 1 1 1.2835 : 1.2835 � 0.0000 1 5,666.316 1 5,666.316 1 0.4953 1 i 5,678.697 '1 I I I I I I I I I 7 1 7 I I I 8 T 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I , I I 1 Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 0.0000 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 cQ CD 7 7 8 U 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I Hauling 9i 0.0000 1 0.0000 :I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 •: 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 • I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I i 0.0000 -I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 -I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I �I J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T I : I I 1 : I I I : I Vendor •I 0.0772 1 2.7944 0.6705 1 0.0100 1 0.2562 2.8300e- 1 0.2590 0.0738 1 2.7100e- 0.0765 • 11,055.593 1 1,055.593 0.0618 1 i 1,057.137 -I I I I I I 003 I I I 003 . 1 4 I 4 I I 1 7 -I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 . I 1 1 1 I �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J I I I I I I I I I Worker •I 0.8947 1 0.5344 1 5.7101 1 0.0183 1 2.2355 1 0.0135 1 2.2490 1 0.5929 1 0.0124 0.6053 • 11,821.266 I 1 1,821.266 : 0.0440 I 1 i 1,822.365 I I-I 8 I 8 I 1 7 -I I I I 1 1 Total 11 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 I 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2 2 2,879.503 3 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I Off-Road •i 3.1851 1 24.0403 1 36.0409 1 0.0597 1 1 1.1159 1 1.1159 1 1 1.1093 1.1093 • 5,666.182 1 5,666.182 1 0.4776 1 i 5,678.122 I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 5 T -I I I I I I I I I , I I I I 1 Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 cQ CD 2 2 5 U 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 : I Hauling 40.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J 7 J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 : I I 1 : I Vendor •1 0.0761 1 2.8087 1 0.6463 1 9.9900e- 1 0.2562 1 2.8200e- 1 0.2590 0.0738 1 2.6900e- 0.0765 • 1 1,054.662 1 1,054.662 0.0618 1 i 1,056.206 '1 I I I 003 I 1 0l)3 I I I 003 . 1 3 I 3 1 1 1 3 '1 I I I I 1 I 1 I . I 1 1 1 1 �1 J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 : I Worker •1 0.8442 1 0.4839 1 5.3154 1 0.0177 1 2.2355 1 0.0134 1 2.2489 1 0.5929 1 0.0123 0.6052 • 1 1,762.225 1 1,762.225 0.0401 1 i 1,763.228 'I I I I I I I I I I p I p I 1 1 6 'I I 1 I 1 1 Total . 0.9203 3.2927 5.9617 0.0277 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6816 2,816.887 2,816.887 0.1019 2 2 2,819.434 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I Off-Road •1 3.1851 1 24.0403 1 36.0409 1 0.0597 1 1 1.1159 1 1.1159 1 1 1.1093 1.1093 � 0.0000 1 5,666.182 1 5,666.182 1 0.4776 1 i 5,678.122 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 1 2 1 1 1 5 T 'I 1 I I I I I I I , I , I I 1 Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 0.0000 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 cQ CD 2 2 5 U N CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 '9 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 : 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662: 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 91 : 003 1 l 003 1 1 1 003 3 1 3 1 i 3 91 1 I 1 . I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.8442 i 0.4839 1 5.3154 i 0.0177 i 2.2355 i 0.0134 i 2.2489 i 0.5929 i 0.0123 0.6052 • i 1,762.225: 1,762.225 : 0.0401 i 1 1,763.228 9i i i i i i i i : 0 1 0 I I i 6 9 11 I I I I I I I I . 1 I I Total 0.9203 3.2927 5.9617 0.0277 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6816 ( 2,816.887 2,816.887 0.1019 2,819.434 2 2 9 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I 1 I 1 I . 2 1 2 I I i 3 9I I I I I I I • I I I 1 �l J J J J J J J m J J J cQ Paving 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i i 1 0.0000 CD • I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CO Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 1 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 W 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662: 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 9003 003 003 1 3 I 3 I I 1 3 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 : 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9I : 1 003 : : 003 1 I I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 003 003 2 2 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 : i 0.4310 : 0.4310 •• 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I 1 3 9I I I I I I I I • I I I 1 �l J J J J J J J •• J J J cQ Paving 9 0.2358 i 1 i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 i 0.0000 CD 9I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I CO Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 : 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662: 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 9003 003 003 1 3 I 3 I I 1 3 9I 1 I I 1 I 1 I . I 1 I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 1 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 i 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9I : 003 : : 003 1 I 1 003 1 l 003 1 I Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 003 003 2 2 0 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating .: 88.2672 i i 1i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 I 7.2405 i 0.0119 i I 0.2437 i 0.2437 I i 0.2437 : 0.2437 • 1,125.792: 1,125.792 : 0.0634 i 11,127.377 CD q I 1 1 1 I . 2 : 2 1 I I 0 CO Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 V1 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J .. I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 2.6800e- i 0.4498 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i 1 1i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 i 1 1 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 �l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 1 7.2405 i 0.0119 i : 0.2437 i 0.2437 1 i 0.2437 : 0.2437 • 0.0000 1,125.792 1 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i 11,127.377 CD q I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 0 I I I I II CO Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 6> 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I •I . I 1 I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I •I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9I : 003 : 1 003 : I : 003 1 : 003 : I Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I i 3 9I I I I I I I • I I I 1 �l J J J J J J J •• J J J cQ Paving 0.2358 i i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 CD • I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 CO Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 1 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 v 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662: 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 9003 003 003 1 3 I 3 I I 1 3 ; J J J J J J J J •• I J J J T Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 : 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9I : 1 003 : : 003 1 I I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 003 003 2 2 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 i 0.0228 i i 0.4685 i 0.4685 : i 0.4310 : 0.4310 •• 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547 i 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I 1 3 9I I I I I I I I • I I I �l J J J J J J J •• J J J cQ Paving 9 0.2358 i 1 i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 i 0.0000 CD 9I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I CO Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 Co 2 2 3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.11 Paving -West Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 9i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 ; J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 : 0.6463 i 9.9900e- i 0.2562 1 2.8200e- i 0.2590 : 0.0738 i 2.6900e- 0.0765 • i 1,054.662: 1,054.662 : 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 9003 003 003 1 3 I 3 I I 1 3 9I 1 I I 1 I 1 I . I 1 I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 1 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 i 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9I : 003 : : 003 1 I 1 003 1 l 003 1 I Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 003 003 2 2 0 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating .: 88.2672 i i 1i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 I 7.2405 i 0.0119 i I 0.2437 i 0.2437 I i 0.2437 : 0.2437 • 1,125.792: 1,125.792 : 0.0634 i 11,127.377 CD q I 1 1 1 I . 2 : 2 1 I I 0 CO Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 r9 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 91 I I I I I I . I I I I 1 9I I I I I I I •. I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 2.6800e- i 0.4498 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 91 : 1 003 1 1 003 1 : I 003 1 1 003 1 I Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i 1 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 i 1 1 1 0.0000 q I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 I I I I�l J J J J J J J J • J J J Cl/Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 1 7.2405 i 0.0119 i : 0.2437 i 0.2437 1 i 0.2437 : 0.2437 • 0.0000 1,125.792 1 1,125.792 i 0.0634 i 11,127.377 Cr, q I I I I I I I I . 2 I 2 I I I 0 I I I I II CO Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 0 2 2 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I MI J J J J J J J J • I J J J T Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i : 0.0000 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I I . I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker •i 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 i 3.5300e- i 0.4471 1 2.6800e- i 0.4498 i 0.1186 i 2.4600e- 0.1210 • i 352.4450 1 352.4450 i 8.0300e- i 1 352.6457 •1 : 003 : 1 003 : : 003 1 : 003 : 1 1 Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile v CD CO 01 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 4 2.4971 i 16.5393 i 32.0045 i 0.1477 i 12.7073 i 0.0917 i 12.7990 i 3.3998 i 0.0855 1 3.4853 • i 15,111.76 i 15,111.76 i 0.6865 1 i 15,128.93 9 I I I I I I I I . 81 81 I 14 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 Unmitigated • 2.4971 • 16.5393 • 32.0045 • 0.1477 • 12.7073 • 0.0917 • 12.7990 • 3.3998 • 0.0855 • 3.4853 • 15,111.76• 15,111.76 • 0.6865 • • 15,128.93 81 81 14 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise ; 1,419.32 1,419.32 1419.32 5,631,294 • 5,631,294 City Park ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y Parking Lot + 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y f Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall ; 83.03 ; 83.03 83.03 • 329,439 329,439 Total I 1,502.35 I 1,502.35 1,502.35 I 5,960,733 I 5,960,733 404 Trip Type Information m w cri IV CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project-San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.90 10.90 : 10.90 40.00 20.00 40.00 100 • 0 0 T City Park ;• 16.60 8.40 I 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 •T 19.00 • 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse 14.70 I 5.90 ? 8.70 40.00 20.00 T 40.00 •• 100 •• 0 • 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator:▪ 16.60 1 8.40 : 6.90 i 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 7 33.00 48.00 T• • • •19.00 • 77 • 19 4 Parking Lot ;▪ 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 0.00 i 0.00 T 0.00 • 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool ;• 16.60 8.40 ? 6.90 33.00 48.00 : 19.00 • 52 •• 39 9 • 4 r • Strip Mall • 10.90 • 10.90 10.90 • 16.60 64.40 • 19.00 • 100 • 0 : 0 • 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 LDT2 I MDV LHD1 I LHD2 I MHD HHD OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303 i 0.181800: 0.111169 i 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365: 0.001491 i 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 -i- 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i i i + City Park • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + General Office Building • 0.558745T 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.018611 1 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.001491 1 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i i i i i i i i i -i- i i i i i i i i i i + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.0353031 0.1818001 0.1111691 0.0142891 0.0047941 0.0186111 0.0650781 0.0013651 0.0014911 0.0057251 0.000799: 0.000830 r i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745; 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Hittorical Energy Use: N v m 5.4 Mitigation Measures Energy cn w CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day m NaturalGas •i 0.1146 i 0.9797 : 0.4196 1 6.2500e- i I 0.0792 i 0.0792 i i 0.0792 : 0.0792 : i 1,250.200: 1,250.200 : 0.0240 i 0.0229 1 1,257.629 Mitigated .1 I I I 003 I I I I I :. 1 I 1 I I 1 4 . I 1 I NaturalGas •• 0.1146 • 0.9797 • 0.4196 • 6.2500e- • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 1,250.200• 1,250.200• 0.0240 • 0.0229 • 1,257.629 Unmitigated 003 1 1 4 0) CO CD W 01 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 44 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid I 10497.7 •1 0.1132 0.9674 1 0.4117 16.1800e- I I 0.0782 I 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 11,235.025 I 0.0237 I 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I .1 I I 1 003 1 I I I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 ;1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 , . 1 1 1 1 I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park i 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I . I 1 I 1 I I .I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I , . I 1 I 1 I r 41 J J J J J .. I J J J T I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous i 62.0919 •1 6.7000e- 15.7200e- 12.4300e- 14.00OOe- I 14.6000e- 14.6000e- I 14.6000e- 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 I 7.3049 11.4000e- 11.3000e- i 7.3483 e I .1 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 ■ 1 1 I 004 I 004 i .I I I I I 1 1 1 I , . I 1 1 1 I r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 : 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking i 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I ; I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office i 46.5836 •1 5.0000e- 14.5700e- 13.8400e- 13.0000e- I 13.5000e- 13.5000e- I 13.5000e- 3.5000e- 0 1 5.4804 I 5.4804 11.1000e- 11.00OOe- i 5.5130 Building I ;: 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 . i 1 I 1 . I I I I 1 1 1 I , . 1 1 004 1 004 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot i 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 0 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I ;1 I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 I .I I I I I I I I I , . I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J ., I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational i 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 0 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall i 20.3084 .1 2.2000e- 11.9900e- 11.6700e- 11.00OOe- I 11.5000e- 11.5000e- I 11.5000e- 1.5000e- 1 2.3892 I 2.3892 I S.00OOe- 14.00OOe- i 2.4034 I '1 004 1 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 1 �1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I , I 1 1 005 1 005 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 0) CO CD W rr cn CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 45 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 Apartments Mid I 10.4977 •1 0.1132 0.9674 I 0.4117 I 6.1800e- I I 0.0782 I 0.0782 I I 0.0782 0.0782 1 1,235.025 11,235.025 I 0.0237 I 0.0226 11,242.364 Rise I •1 1 I 1 003 1 1 1 I I : 1 5 I 5 1 I I 7 I ;1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 , • 1 1 1 1 I I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 City Park 1 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 I •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 I I 1 I ••1 I I I I I I I I , • 1 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J .1 J J -• I J J J -r I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 I 1 Condo/Townhous 10.06209199 6.7000e- 5.7200e- 1 2.4300e- 1 4.0000e- 1 1 4.6000e- 4.6000e- 1 1 4.6000e- 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 1 7.3049 1 1.4000e- 1 1.3000e- 1 7.3483 e I ;1 004 003 1 003 005 1 I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 • 1 1 004 I 004 i I •I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I , • 1 1 1 1 I I : 1 : : 1 : 1 I 1 1 I 1 Enclosed Parking 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 with Elevator I ; 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 . I 1 I 1 1 I •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , • I 1 1 1 I I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 General Office 10.0465836.1 5.0000e- 4.5700e- 1 3.8400e- 1 3.0000e- 1 1 3.5000e- 3.5000e- 1 1 3.5000e- 3.5000e- I 1 5.4804 1 5.4804 1 1.1000e- 1 1.0000e- 1 5.5130 Building I ;: 004 003 1 003 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 004 004 • i 1 1 1 I • 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 , • 1 1 004 1 004 r 41 J J J J J 4 I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Parking Lot 1 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I •1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 I ••1 I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I I I r 41 J J J J J . I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 I 1 I 1 Recreational 1 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 Swimming Pool I ,1 I I I I I I I I . I I 1 I 1 I •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , . I 1 1 1 I r 41 J J J J J I J J J T I : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 Strip Mall 10.0203084.1 2.2000e- 1.9900e- 1 1.6700e- 1 1.0000e- 1 1 1.5000e- 1 1.5000e- 1 1 1.5000e- 1.5000e- • 1 2.3892 1 2.3892 1 5.0000e- 1 4.0000e- 1 2.4034 I •1 004 003 003 005 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 • 1 1 005 I 005 i I 9 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I , • 1 1 1 1 1 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 6.0 Area Detail 63 Mitigation Measures Area w cn cn CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 46 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 7.0358 i 4.5605 i 23.3317 i 0.0287 i i 0.4677 i 0.4677 i 1 0.4677 : 0.4677 : 0.0000 •5,544.624 i 5,544.624 i 0.1429 i 0.1009 1 5,578.277 9 I I I • I I I I • I •2 • 2 • I • 1 91 I I • I I • I . I 1 Unmitigated • 7.0358 • 4.5605 • 23.3317 • 0.0287 • • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • 0.0000 •5,544.624•5,544.624• 0.1429 • 0.1009 •5,578.277 2 2 1 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.4837 1 1 1 1 i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 i i 0.0000 Coating :1 I I I I I I . ' I I I I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I I v J J J Consumer 9 5.3977 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 • • i 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Products :: • I I I • I • . I • I I '� • I I I I • I I • Hearth 9 0.5047 1 4.3129 1 1.8353 1 0.0275 1 1 0.3487 1 0.3487 1 1 0.3487 0.3487 : 0.0000 •5,505.882 1 5,505.882 1 0.1055 1 0.1009 :5,538.601 9 • I • • • • I ; . 4 • 4 • • 1 1 .JO •i J J J J J J J J J J J Tandscaping 9 0.6498 1 0.2475 1 21.4964 1 1.1400e- 1 1 0.1190 1 0.1190 1 1 0.1190 0.1190 • • 38.7418 1 38.7418 1 0.0374 1 I 39.6760 9 • I I 003 • I I I I • . I 1 I I I W 1 1 I I • I I I I I I 1 I I I v Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 47 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2T Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural • I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i 0.4837 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 1 i 0.0000 Coating •1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J a V 1 J J J T I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 Consumer •1 5.3977 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 1 1 0.0000 1 1 I 0.0000 Products :: 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I . 1 1 I 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 �I J J a J a J J a V I J J J T I I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Hearth •1 0.5047 1 4.3129 1 1.8353 1 0.0275 1 0.3487 1 0.3487 1 1 0.3487 0.3487 : 0.0000 1 5,505.882 1 5,505.882 1 0.1055 1 0.1009 i 5,538.601 9 I I I I I I I I . I 4 I 4 I I 1 'I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 �I J J a J a J J a V 1 J J J T I 1 I : I I 1 I I 1 I 1 Landscaping •1 0.6498 1 0.2475 1 21.4964 1 1.1400e- 1 0.1190 1 0.1190 1 1 0.1190 0.1190 � 1 38.7418 1 38.7418 1 0.0374 1 i 39.6760 '1 I I I 003 1 I I I I . I I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 I 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste -o v 91) Operational Offroad co IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Days/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I 10.0 Stationary Equipment CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 48 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor I Fuel Type 1 Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 1 11.0 Vegetation v CD CP CO Attachment B Construction Operation 2022 Total Emission Rate Annual Emissions(tons/year) 1 0.13151 Total DPM(Ibs) 799.2306849 Annual Emissions(tons/year) I 0.0429 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 0.720547945 Total DPM(g) 362531.0387 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 0.235068493 Construction Duration(days) 302 Total Construction Days 735 Emission Rate(g/s) I 0.001234111 Total DPM(Ibs) 217.6054795 Emission Rate(g/s) 0.0057087911 Release Height(meters) 3 Total DPM(g) 98705.84548 Release Height(meters) 3 Total Acreage 5.2 Start Date 1 3/5/20221 Total Acreage 1 5.21 Max Horizontal(meters) 205.15 End Date 1/1/2023 Max Horizontal(meters) 205.15 Min Horizontal(meters) 102.58 Construction Days 302 Min Horizontal(meters) 102.58 Initial Vertical Dimension(meters) 1.5 2023 Initial Vertical Dimension(meters) 1.5 Setting Urban Annual Emissions(tons/year) 1 0.2851 Setting Urban Population 176,379 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 1.561643836 Population 176,379 Total Pounds of DPM Construction Duration(days) 365 Start Date 3/5/2022 Total DPM(Ibs) 85.8 Total DPM(Ibs) 570 End Date 3/9/2024 Total DPM(g) 258552 Total Construction Days 735 Start Date 1/1/2023 Total Years of Construction 2.01 End Date 1/1/2024 Total Years of Operation 27.99 Construction Days 365 2024 Annual Emissions(tons/year) 1 0.03121 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 0.170958904 Construction Duration(days) 68 Total DPM(Ibs) 11.62520548 Total DPM(g) 5273.193205 Start Date 1/1/2024 End Date 1 3/9/20241 Construction Days 68 Page 1360 Attachment C Start date and time 09/28/21 09:59:53 AERSCREEN 21112 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project AERSCREEN Construction Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project AERSCREEN Construction DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** Emission Rate: 0.571E-02 g/s 0.453E-01 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 205.15 meters 673.06 feet Area Source Width: 102.58 meters 336.55 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 176379 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** Page 1361 No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Page 1362 Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*) : not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics. . . Page 1363 Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 09/28/21 10:01:53 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 Page 1364 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page1365 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Page 1366 Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 Page 1367 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 Page1368 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 Page1369 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Page 1370 Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 Page 1371 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 Page 1372 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 1373 *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 09/28/21 10:02:04 REFINE started 09/28/21 10:02:04 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 1374 *** NONE *** REFINE ended 09/28/21 10:02:05 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 09/28/21 10:02:07 Page1375 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.69621E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76131E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81622E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86250E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91010E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.91461E+01 103.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71251E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50963E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41465E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34837E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29835E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25963E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22878E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20380E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18332E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16593E+01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15140E+01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13882E+01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12804E+01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11859E+01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11024E+01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10291E+01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96428E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90598E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85308E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80534E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1376 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_cone_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76221E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72306E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68740E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65438E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62404E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59613E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57038E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54648E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52418E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50344E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48412E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46607E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44906E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43305E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41800E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40385E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39057E+00 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37798E+00 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36608E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35485E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34421E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33412E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32454E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31543E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30676E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29846E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29054E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1377 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_cone_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28299E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27577E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26885E+00 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26220E+00 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25584E+00 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24973E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24388E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23826E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23287E+00 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22770E+00 1525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22272E+00 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21792E+00 1575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21330E+00 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20884E+00 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20455E+00 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20041E+00 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19641E+00 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19255E+00 1725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18882E+00 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18522E+00 1775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18173E+00 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17836E+00 1825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17510E+00 1850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17194E+00 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17018E+00 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16716E+00 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16423E+00 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1378 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_cone_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16139E+00 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15863E+00 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15596E+00 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15336E+00 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15083E+00 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14838E+00 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14599E+00 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14367E+00 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14141E+00 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13922E+00 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13708E+00 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13500E+00 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13297E+00 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13099E+00 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12907E+00 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12719E+00 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12536E+00 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12358E+00 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12184E+00 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12014E+00 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11848E+00 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11686E+00 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11528E+00 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11373E+00 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11222E+00 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11075E+00 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10931E+00 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1379 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_cone_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10790E+00 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10652E+00 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10517E+00 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10385E+00 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10256E+00 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10130E+00 2775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10006E+00 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98853E-01 2825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97668E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96507E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95370E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94256E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93165E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92095E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91046E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90017E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89009E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88020E-01 3074.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87050E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86098E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85164E-01 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84248E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83348E-01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82465E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81598E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80747E-01 3275.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79911E-01 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1380 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_cone_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79090E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78283E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77491E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76712E-01 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75947E-01 3425.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75195E-01 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74455E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73728E-01 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73014E-01 3525.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72311E-01 3550.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71620E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70940E-01 3600.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70272E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69614E-01 3650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68967E-01 3675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68330E-01 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67703E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67086E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66479E-01 3775.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65881E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65293E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64714E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64143E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63581E-01 3900.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63028E-01 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62482E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61946E-01 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1381 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_A1taCuvee AERSCREEN_Construction max_conc distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61416E-01 4000.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60895E-01 4025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60381E-01 4050.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59875E-01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59376E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58885E-01 4125.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58400E-01 4150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57922E-01 4175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57451E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56986E-01 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56528E-01 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56076E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55631E-01 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55191E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54758E-01 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54330E-01 4375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53908E-01 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53492E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53082E-01 4450.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52676E-01 4475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52276E-01 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51882E-01 4525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51492E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51107E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50728E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50353E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49983E-01 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1382 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_A1taCuvee AERSCREEN_Construction max_conc distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49618E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49257E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48901E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48549E-01 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48202E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47859E-01 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47520E-01 4825.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47185E-01 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46855E-01 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46528E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46205E-01 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45887E-01 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45571E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45260E-01 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 1383 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_A1taCuvee AERSCREEN_Construction max_conc distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] Start date and time 09/28/21 10:03:51 AERSCREEN 21112 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project AERSCREEN Operations DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** Emission Rate: 0.123E-02 g/s 0.979E-02 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 205.15 meters 673.06 feet Area Source Width: 102.58 meters 336.55 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 176379 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** No Building Downwash Parameters Page 1384 ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Page1385 Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*) : not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics. . . Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Page 1386 Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 09/28/21 10:05:47 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Page 1387 Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 Page1388 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 Page1389 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 1390 *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 1391 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 Page 1392 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 Page 1393 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 Page 1394 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page1395 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 1396 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 09/28/21 10:05:57 REFINE started 09/28/21 10:05:57 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 1397 REFINE ended 09/28/21 10:05:59 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 09/28/21 10:06:00 Page1398 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.15048E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16455E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17642E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18642E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19671E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.19769E+01 103.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15400E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11015E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89625E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75298E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64487E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56118E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49449E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44051E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39624E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35865E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32724E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30006E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27675E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25632E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23828E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22244E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20842E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19582E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18439E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17407E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1399 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16475E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15629E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14858E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14144E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13488E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12885E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12329E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11812E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11330E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10882E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10464E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10074E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97063E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93600E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90348E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87290E-01 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84419E-01 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81698E-01 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79126E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76698E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74399E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72218E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70147E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68179E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66305E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64510E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62799E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1400 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61166E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59606E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58111E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56674E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55298E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53978E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52713E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51499E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50334E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49216E-01 1525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48139E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47101E-01 1575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46103E-01 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45140E-01 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44212E-01 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43317E-01 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42454E-01 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41619E-01 1725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40813E-01 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40034E-01 1775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39281E-01 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38552E-01 1825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37846E-01 1850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37163E-01 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36784E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36131E-01 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35498E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1401 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34884E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34288E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33709E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33147E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32601E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32071E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31555E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31054E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30566E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30091E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29629E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29179E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28741E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28314E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27897E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27492E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27096E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26710E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26334E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25967E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25608E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25258E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24917E-01 2525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24583E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24256E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23938E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23626E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1402 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23322E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23024E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22732E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22447E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22168E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21895E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21628E-01 2800.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21366E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21110E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20860E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20614E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20373E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20137E-01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19906E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19679E-01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19457E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19239E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19025E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18815E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18610E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18408E-01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18210E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18015E-01 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17824E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17637E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17453E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17272E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1403 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17095E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16920E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16749E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16581E-01 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16415E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16253E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16093E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15936E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15781E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15630E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15480E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15333E-01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15189E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15047E-01 3650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14907E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14769E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14634E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14500E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14369E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14240E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14113E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13988E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13864E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13743E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13623E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13505E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13389E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1404 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13275E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13162E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13051E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12942E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12834E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12728E-01 4125.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12623E-01 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12520E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12418E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12317E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12218E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12121E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12024E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11929E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11836E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11743E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11652E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11562E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11473E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11386E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11299E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11214E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11130E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11047E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10965E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10884E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10804E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1405 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10725E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10647E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10570E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10494E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10419E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10344E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10271E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10199E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10127E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10057E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99870E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99181E-02 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98500E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97827E-02 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 1406 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] Attachment D SWAP E Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (949)887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F.Hagemann,P.G.,*C.Hg** Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies Expert Testimony Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Professional Certifications: *Professional Geologist **Certified Hydrogeologist Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Professional Experience: 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and 1 Page 1407 Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. Led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions held include: Government: • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(1989-1998); • Hydrogeologist,National Park Service,Water Resources Division(1998-2000); • Geologist,U.S.Forest Service (1986-1998) Educational: • Geology Instructor, Golden West College,2010-2104, 2017; • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 -1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 - 1995); Private Sector: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 - present); • Senior Environmental Analyst,Komex H2O Science,Inc. (2000--2003); • Executive Director,Orange Coast Watch(2001-2004); • Geologist,Dames&Moore(1984-1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to 2 Page 1408 hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. • Recommending additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce exposure to hazards from toxins. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities. • Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of groundwater, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns, for both government agencies and corporate clients. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applicationsfor large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination inSouthern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimonyby the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronologyof MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronologyof perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinkingwater treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. • Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an 3 Page 1409 operating school in LosAngeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation withclients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, an Orange County-based not-for-profit water-quality organization,led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities included: • Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, andgroundwater. • Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identifying emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S.EPA workgroups,including the SuperfundGroundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. Used 4 Page 1410 analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for contribution to the development of national guidance forthe protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prepared geologic reports, conducted hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliancewith Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote"part B"permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality,including the following: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military,mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone andOlympic National Park. • Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. 5 Page 1411 • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personalwatercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation-wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency,Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advising the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinkingwater supplies. • Shaping EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improving the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earning an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers innegotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process. • Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service,led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed fortimber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included: • Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large 6 Page 1412 hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervising year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducting aquifer tests. • Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University,held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. • Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony,Reports,Papers and Presentations: Hagemann,M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the PublicEnvironmental Law Conference, Eugene,Oregon. Hagemann,M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.EPA Region 9,San Francisco, California. Hagemann,M.F.,2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making andPublic Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F.,2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann,M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins atschools in Southern California,Los Angeles. Brown,A.,Farrow,J.,Gray,A. and Hagemann,M.,2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBEReleases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference,National 7 Page 1413 Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix,AZ(served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Waterin the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann,M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to atribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann,M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives, Parker,AZ. Hagemann,M.F.,2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking WaterSupplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann,M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invitedpresentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann,M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to ameeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to AddressImpacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann,M.F.,2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in 8 Page 1414 Groundwater(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublishedreport. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.Unpublished report. Hagemann,M.F.,2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground StorageTanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal WatercraftUsage.Water Resources Division, National Park Service,Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George WrightSociety Biannual Meeting,Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA SuperfundGroundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting,Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval AirStation, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. 9 Page 1415 Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Airand Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac to r i z a t i o n and Cl can up a t Closing Military Basesin California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL-contaminated Groundwater.California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings,Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting,v.35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,2009-2011. 10 Page 1416 Attachment C SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE S AiA P E Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and 525 Broadway Avenue,Suite 203 Litigation Support for the Environment Santa Monica,California 90401 Attn:Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D. Tel:(310)795-2335 Fax:(310)434-0011 Email:prosenfeld@swape.com Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport&Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment And Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D.Soil Chemistry,University of Washington, 1999.Dissertation on VOC filtration. M.S.Environmental Science,U.C.Berkeley, 1995.Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A.Environmental Studies,U.C.Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld is the environmental chemist at Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE).His focus is the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, risk assessment, and ecological restoration. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources as they relate to human and ecological health. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing, petroleum, MtBE and fuel oxygenates, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, PCBs, PAHs, dioxins, furans, volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, perchlorate, heavy metals, asbestos, PFOA, unusual polymers, and odor. Significant projects performed by Dr.Rosenfeld include the following: Litigation Support Client: Nexsen Pruet,LLC(Charleston,South Carolina) Serving as expert in chlorine exposure in railroad tank car accident where approximately 120,000 pounds of chlorine were released. Client:Buzbee Law Firm(Houston,Texas) Serving as expert in catalyst release and refinery emissions cases against BP Texas City. One case settled regarding worker exposure, but ongoing litigation remains involving —21,500 plaintiffs who have health claims and are seeking remediation from chemicals released from BP facility. Client: Girardi Keese(Los Angeles,California) SWAPE 1 Rosenfeld CV Page 1417 Serving as expert investigating hydrocarbon exposure and property damage for —600 individuals and —280 properties in Carson,California,where homes were constructed above a large tank farm formerly owned by Shell. Client: Brent Coon Law Firm(Cleveland,Ohio) Served as expert calculating an environmental exposure to benzene, PAHs, and VOCs from a Chevron Refinery in Hooven Ohio. Ran AERMOD to calculate cumulative dose. Client: Girardi Keese(Los Angeles,California) Served as expert testifying on hydrocarbon exposure to a woman who worked on a fuel barge operated by Chevron. Demonstrated that the plaintiff was exposed to excessive amounts of benzene. Client: Lundy Davis(Lake Charles,Louisiana) Served as consulting expert on an oil field case representing the lease holder of a contaminated oil field. Conducted field work evaluating oil field contamination in Sulfur,Louisiana. Property is owned by Conoco Phillips,but leased by Yellow Rock,a small oil firm. Client: Cox Cox Filo(Lake Charles,Louisiana) Serving as testifying expert on multimillion gallon oil spill in Lake Charles which occurred on June 19, 2006, resulting in hydrocarbon vapor exposure to hundreds of workers and residents. Prepared air model and calculated dose. Demonstrated that petroleum odor alone can result in significant health harms. Client: Cotchett Pitre&McCarthy(San Francisco,California) Served as testifying expert representing homeowners who unknowingly purchased homes built on an old oil field in Santa Maria,California.Properties have high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils resulting in diminished property value. Client:Baron& Budd(Dallas,Texas)&Weitz&Luxenberg(New York,NY) Serving as consulting expert in MTBE Federal Multi District Litigation(MDL) in New York. Consolidated ground water data,created maps for test cases,constructed damage model,evaluated taste and odor threshold levels. Client: Law Offices Of Anthony Liberatore P.C.(Los Angeles,California) Served as testifying expert representing individuals who rented homes on the Inglewood Oil Field in California. Plaintiffs were exposed to hydrocarbon contaminated water and air, and experienced health harms associated with the petroleum exposure. Client: Baron&Budd P.C.Dallas Texas and Korein Tillery(Madison,County) Illinois, Private Wells Analysis: Coordinated data acquisition and GIS analysis evaluating private well proximity to leaking underground storage tanks to support litigation noting that private well owners should be compensated for MTBE testing. Client: Orange County District Attorney(Orange County,California) SWAPE 2 Rosenfeld CV Page 1418 Coordinated a review of 143 ARCO gas stations in Orange County to assist the District Attorney's prosecution of CCR Title 23 and California Health and Safety Code violators. Client: Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) Serving as testifying expert in a health effects case against ABC Coke/Drummond Co for polluting a community with PAHs,benzene,particulate matter,heavy metals,and coke oven emissions. Created air dispersions models and conducted attic dust sampling,exposure modeling,and risk assessment for plaintiffs. Client: Masry Vitatoe (Westlake Village, CA), Engstrom Lipscomb Lack (Los Angeles, CA) & Baron & Budd(Dallas Texas). Served as consulting expert in Proposition 65 lawsuit filed against the major oil companies for benzene and toluene releases from gas stations and refineries which contaminated groundwater. Settlement included over $110 million dollars in injunctive relief. Client: Tommy Franks Law Firm (Austin,Texas) Served as expert evaluating groundwater contamination which resulted from the hazardous waste injection program and negligent actions of Morton Thiokol and Rohm Hass. Interpreted drinking water contamination and community exposure. Client: Baron& Budd (Dallas Texas)and Sher Leff(San Francisco,California) Serving as consulting expert for several California cities which have filed defective product cases against Dow Chemical and Shell for 1,2,3-trichloropropane groundwater contamination. Generated maps showing capture zones of impacted wells for various municipalities. Client:Baron& Budd(Dallas Texas)and Korein Tillery(Madison County,Illinois) Serving as consulting expert for a Class Action defective product Atrazine claim filed in Madison County, Illinois against Syngenta and five other manufactures. The plaintiff class representative is Holiday Shores Water System which is evaluating health issues associated with atrazine, costing out treatment for filtration of public drinking water supplies. Client:Weitz&Luxenberg(New York,NY) Serving as expert on Property Damage and Nuisance claims resulting from emissions from the Countywide Landfill in Ohio. The landfill had an exothermic reaction or fire resulting from aluminum dross dumping,and the EPA fined the landfill$10,000,000 dollars. Client: Baron& Budd(Dallas Texas) Serving as consulting expert for a groundwater contamination case in Pensacola Florida where fluorinated compounds contaminated wells operated by Escambia County. Client: Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) SWAPE 3 Rosenfeld CV Page 1419 Serving as an expert on property damage,medical monitoring and toxic tort claims that have been filed on behalf of over 12,000 plaintiffs who were exposed to PCBs and dioxins/furans resulting from emissions from Monsanto and Cerro Copper's operations in East Sauget,Illinois. Client:Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) Served as an expert on groundwater case when Exxon Mobil and Helena Chemical released ethylene dichloride into groundwater resulting in a large plume. Prepared report on the appropriate treatment technology and cost,and flaws with the proposed on site remedy. Client: Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) Serving as an expert on air emissions released when a Bartlo Packaging Incorporated facility in West Helena Arkansas exploded resulting in community exposure to pesticides and smoke from combustion of pesticides. Client: Omara&Padilla(San Diego,Califorinia) Served as testifying expert on nuisance case against Nutro Dogfood Company that constructed a large dog food processing facility in the middle of a residential community in Victorville California with no odor control devices. The facility has undergone significant modifications including installation of a regenerative thermal oxidizer. Client: Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) Serving as an expert on property damage and medical monitoring claims that have been filed against International Paper resulting from chemical emissions from facilities located in Bastrop Louisiana, Prattville, Alabama, and Georgetown South Carolina. Client: Estep and Shafer(West Virginia) Served as expert running various air models to calculate acid emissions dose to residents resulting from emissions from a coal fired power plant in West Virginia. Client: Watts Law Firm(Austin,Texas),Woodfill Pressler(Houston,Texas),Woska&Ass.(Oklahoma) Served as testifying expert on community and worker exposure to CCA, creosote,PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a BNSF and Kopper's Facility in Somerville,Texas. Conducted field sampling,risk assessment,dose assessment and air modelling to quantify exposure to workers and community members. Client: Environmental Litigation Group(Birmingham,Alabama) Served as expert regarding community exposure to CCA, creosote, PAHs, and dioxins/furans from a Louisiana Pacific wood treatment facility in Florala, Alabama. Conducted blood sampling and environmental sampling to determine environmental exposure to dioxins/furans and PAHs. Client: Sanders Law(Colorado Springs,Co)and Vamvoras&Schwartzberg(Lake Charles,Louisiana) Serving as expert calculating chemical exposure to over 500 workers from large ethylene dichloride spill in Lake Charles,Louisiana,at the Conoco Phillips Refinery. Client: Baron&Budd P.C.(Dallas,Texas) SWAPE 4 Rosenfeld CV Page 1420 Served as consulting expert in a defective product lawsuit against Dow Agroscience focusing on Clopyralid, a recalcitrant herbicide that damaged numerous compost facilities across the United States. Client: Sullivan Papain Block McGrath&Cannavo(NY,NY)and The Cochran Firm(Dothan,MS) Served as expert regarding community exposure to metals, PAHs PCBs, and dioxins/furans from the burning of Ford Paint Sludge and municipal solid waste in Ringwood,New Jersey. Client:Rose,Klein Marias(Los Angeles,CA) Serving as expert in Proposition 65 cases, each one citing an individual facility in the Port of Oakland. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000,hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute. Client:Rose,Klein Marias(Los Angeles,CA) Serving as expert in 55 Proposition 65 cases, each one citing an individual facility in the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach as the defendant. Prepared air dispersion and risk models to demonstrate that each facility emits diesel particulate matter that results in risks exceeding 1/100,000,hence violating the Proposition 65 Statute. Client: Graham&Associates(Calabasas,CA) Served as expert in a case in which General Motors is the plaintiff and BP Arco is the defendant. Conducted air models to demonstrate that sulfur emissions from the BP Arco facility formed sulfuric acid,destroying paint on over 350 automobiles. Client:Rose,Mien Marias (Los Angeles,CA)and Environmental Law Foundation(San Francisco,CA) Served as expert in a Proposition 65 case against potato chip manufacturers. Conducted an analysis of several brands of potato chips for acrylamide concentration and found that all samples exceeded Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Levels. Client: Gonzales&Robinson(Westlake Village,CA) Served as testifying expert in a toxic tort case against Chevron(Ortho)for allowing a community to be contaminated with lead arsenate pesticide. Created air dispersion models, soil vadose zone transport models, and evaluated bioaccumulation of lead arsenate in food. Client:Environment Now(Santa Monica,CA) Served as expert for Environment Now to convince the State of California to file a nuisance claim against the automobile manufactures to recover MediCal damages from expenditures on asthma-related health care costs. Client: Trutanich Michell(Long Beach,California) Served as expert representing San Pedro Boat Works in the Port of Los Angeles. Prepared air dispersion,particulate air dispersion, and storm water discharge models to demonstrate that Kaiser Bulk Loading is responsible for copper concentrate accumulating in the bay sediment. Client: Azurix of North America(Fort Myers,Florida) SWAPE 5 Rosenfeld CV Page 1421 Provided expert opinions, reports and research pertaining to a proposed County Ordinance requiring biosolids applicators to measure VOC and odor concentrations at application sites'boundaries. Client: MCP Polyurethane(Pittsburg,Kansas) Provided expert opinions and reports regarding metal-laden landfill runoff that damaged a running track by causing the reversion of the polyurethane due to its catalytic properties. Risk Assessment And Modeling Client:ABT-Haskell (San Bernardino,California) Prepared air dispersion model for a proposed state-of-the-art enclosed compost facility. Developed odor detection limits to predict 1, 8,and 24-hour off-site concentrations of sulfur, ammonia,and amine as well as prepared a traffic analysis. Client: Jefferson PRP Group(Los Angeles,California) Evaluated exposure pathways for chlorinated solvents and hexavalent chromium for human health risk assessment of Los Angeles Academy (formerly Jefferson New Middle School) operated by Los Angeles Unified School District. Client: Covanta(Susanville California) Prepared human health risk assessment for Covanta Energy focusing on agricultural worker exposure to caustic fertilizer. Client: CIWMB (Sacramento California) Used dispersion models to estimate traveling distance and VOC concentrations downwind from a composting facility for the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Client: Carboquimeca(Bogota,Columbia) Evaluated exposure pathways for human health risk assessment for a confidential client focusing on significant concentrations of arsenic and chlorinated solvents contaminating groundwater used for drinking water. Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team(Treasure Island,California) Used Johnson-Ettinger model to estimate indoor air PCB concentrations and compared estimated values with empirical data collected in homes. Negotiated action levels with DTSC. Client: San Diego State University(San Diego California) Measured CO2 flux from soils amended with different quantities of biosolids compost at Camp Pendleton to determine CO2 credit values for coastal sage under fertilized and non-fertilized conditions. Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team(MCAS Tustin,California) Evaluated cumulative risk of a multiple pathway scenario with a child resident and a construction worker's exposure to air and soil via particulate and vapor inhalation,incidental soil ingestion,and dermal contact with soil. SWAPS 6 Rosenfeld CV Page 1422 Client: MCAS Miramar(San Diego,California) Evaluated exposure pathways of metals in soil, comparing site data to background data. Risk assessment incorporated multiple pathway scenarios assuming child resident and construction worker exposure to particulate and vapor inhalation,soil ingestion,and dermal soil contact. Client: Naval Weapons Station(Seal Beach,California) Used a multiple pathway model to generate dust emission factors from automobiles driving on dirt roads. Calculated bioaccumulation of metals,PCBs,dioxin congeners and pesticides to estimate human and ecological risk. Client: King County,Douglas County(Washington State) Measured PMI() and PM2.5 emissions from windblown soil treated with biosolids and a polyacrylamide polymer in Douglas County Washington. Used Pilat Mark V impactor for measurement and compared data to EPA particulate regulations. Client: King County,Seattle,Washington. Conducted emission inventory for several compost and wastewater facilities comparing VOC,particulate, and fungi concentrations to NIOSH values estimating risk to workers and individuals at neighboring facilities. Air Pollution Investigation and Remediation Client: Republic Landfill(Santa Clarita,CA) Managed a field investigation of odor around a landfill during 30+ events. Using hedonic tone, butanol scale, dilution-to-threshold values,and odor character to evaluate odor sources and character and intensity. Client: California Biomass(Victorville,CA) Managed a field investigation of odor around landfill during 9+events. Using hedonic tone,butanol scale,dilution- to-threshold values,and odor character to evaluate odor sources,character and intensity. Client: ABT-Haskell(Redlands,California) Assisted in permitting a compost facility that will be completely enclosed with a complex scrubbing system using acid scrubbers,base scrubbers,biofilters,heat exchangers and chlorine to reduce VOC emissions by 99 percent. Client: Synagro(Corona,California) Designed and monitored 30-foot by 20-foot by 6-foot biofilter for VOC control from an industrial composting facility in Corona,California,reducing VOC emissions by 99 percent. Client: Jeff Gage,(Tacoma,Washington) Conducted emission inventory at industrial compost facility using GC/MS analyses for VOCs. Evaluated effectiveness of VOC and odor control systems and estimated human health risk. SWAPE 7 Rosenfeld CV Page 1423 Client: Daishowa America(Port Angeles Mill,Washington) Analyzed industrial paper sludge and ash for VOCs, heavy metals and nutrients to develop a land application program.Metals were compared to federal guidelines to determine maximum allowable land application rates. Client: Jeff Gage(Puyallup Washington) Measured effectiveness of biofilters at composting facility and ran EPA dispersion models to estimate traveling distance of odor and human health risk from exposure to volatile organics. Surface Water, Groundwater, and Wastewater Investigation/Remediation Client: Confidential (Downey,California) Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of 1,000 foot TCE plume associated with a metal finishing shop. Client: Confidential (West Hollywood,California) Designed soil vapor extraction system that is currently being installed for confidential client. Managed groundwater investigation to determine horizontal extent of TCE plume associated with dry cleaning. Client: Synagro Technologies(Sacramento,California) Managed groundwater investigation to determine if biosolids application impacted salinity and nutrient concentrations in groundwater. Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team(Treasure Island,California) Assisted in the design and remediation of PCB, chlorinated solvent, hydrocarbon and lead contaminated groundwater and soil on Treasure Island.Negotiated screening levels with DTSC and Water Board. Assisted in the preparation of FSP/QAPP,RI/FS,and RAP documents and assisted in CEQA document preparation. Client: Navy Base Realignment and Closure Team(MCAS Tustin,California) Assisted in the design of groundwater monitoring systems for chlorinated solvents at Tustin MCAS. Contributed to the preparation of FS for groundwater treatment. Client: MCP(Walnut,California) Conducted forensic surface water and sediment sampling. Designed and conducted bench scale laboratory experiments. Demonstrated that metal and organic contaminants in storm water and sediment from landfill flooded and chemically compromised a polyurethane track. Client: Mission Cleaning Facility(Salinas California) Prepared a RAP and cost estimate for using an oxygen releasing compound (ORC) and molasses to oxidize diesel fuel in soil and groundwater at Mission Cleaning in Salinas. SWAPE 8 Rosenfeld CV Page 1424 Client: King County,Washingon Established and monitored experimental plots at a US EPA Superfund Site in wetland and upland mine tailings contaminated with zinc and lead in Smelterville, Idaho. Used organic matter and pH adjustment for wetland remediation and erosion control. Client: City of Redmond(Richmond,Washington) Collected storm water from compost-amended and fertilized turf to measure nutrients in urban runoff. Evaluated effectiveness of organic matter-lined detention ponds on reduction of peak flow during storm events. Drafted compost amended landscape installation guidelines to promote storm water detention and nutrient runoff reduction. Client: City of Seattle(Seattle,Washington) Measured VOC emissions from Renton wastewater treatment plant in Washington. Ran GC/MS, dispersion models, and sensory panels to characterize,quantify,control and estimate risk from VOCs. Client: Plumas County(Quincy,California) Installed wetland to treat contaminated water containing 1%copper in an EPA Superfund site. Revegetated 10 acres of acidic and metal laden sand dunes resulting from hydraulic mining. Installed and monitored piezometers in wetland estimating metal loading. Client: Adams Egg Farm(St.Kitts,West Indies) Designed, constructed, and maintained 3 anaerobic digesters at Springfield Egg Farm, St. Kitts. Digesters treated chicken excrement before effluent discharged into sea.Chicken waste was converted into methane cooking gas. Client: BLM(Kremmling Colorado) Collected water samples for monitoring program along upper stretch of the Colorado River. Rafted along river, protecting water quality by digging and repairing latrines. Soil Science and Restoration Projects Client: Kinder Morgan(San Diego County California) Designed and monitored the restoration of a 110-acre project on Camp Pendleton along a 26-mile pipeline.Managed crew of 20, planting coastal sage, riparian, wetland, native grassland, and marsh ecosystems. Negotiated with the CDFW concerning species planting list and success standards. Client: NAVY BRAC(Orote Landfill,Guam) Designed and monitored pilot landfill cap mimicking limestone forest. Measured different species' root-penetration into landfill cap.Plants were used to evapotranspirate water,reducing water leaching through soil profile. Client: LA Sanitation District Puente Hills Landfill(Whittier,California) Monitored success of upland and wetland mitigation at Puente Hills Landfill operated by Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles.Negotiated with the Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG to obtain an early sign-off. SWAPE 9 Rosenfeld CV Page 1425 Client: City of Escondido(Escondido California) Designed, managed, installed, and monitored a 20-acre coastal sage scrub restoration project at Kit Carson Park, Escondido,California. Client: Home Depot(Encinitas,California) Designed, managed, installed and monitored a 15-acre coastal sage scrub and wetland restoration project at Home Depot in Encinitas,California. Client: Alvarado Water Filtration Plant(San Diego,California) Planned,installed and monitored 2-acre riparian and coastal sage scrub mitigation in San Diego California. Client: Monsanto and James River Corporation(Clatskanie Oregon) Served as a soil scientist on a 50,000-acre hybrid poplar farm. Worked on genetically engineering study of Poplar trees to see if glyphosate resistant poplar clones were economically viable. Client: World Wildlife Fund(St.Kitts,West Indies) Managed 2-year biodiversity study, quantifying and qualifying the various flora and fauna in St. Kitts' expanding volcanic rainforest.Collaborated with skilled botanists,ornithologists and herpetologists. Publications Rosenfeld,P.E. &Feng,L.(2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste,Amsterdam:Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry,Amsterdam:Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2011). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget,IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences 4(2011):113-125. Feng,L.,Wu, C., Tam,L., Sutherland,A.J., Clark,J.J.,Rosenfeld,P.E., (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States.Journal of Environmental Health 73(6):34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries,Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry,Amsterdam:Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C.,Tam,L., Clark,J.,Rosenfeld,P. (2009). `Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States', in Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds.,Air Pollution XVII: SWAPE 10 Rosenfeld CV Page 1426 Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modelling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution,Tallinn,Estonia.20-22 July,2009, Southampton,Boston.WIT Press. Tam L.K..,Wu C.D.,Clark J.J. and Rosenfeld,P.E.(2008)A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin(TCDD)Toxicity Equivalency Quotients(TEQ)In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities.Organohalogen Compounds,Volume 70(2008)page 002254. Tam L.K..,Wu C.D.,Clark J.J. and Rosenfeld,P.E.(2008)Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust:A Review. Organohalogen Compounds,Volume 70(2008) page 000527. Hensley,A.R.A. Scott,J.J.J. Clark,P.E.Rosenfeld(2007)"Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility"Environmental Research. 105,pp 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007) "The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities"—Water Science&Technology 55(5): 345-357. Rosenfeld,P.E., M. Suffet.(2007)"The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water,Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment"Water Science&Technology 55(5): 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E., (2007) "Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water,and Air in American Cities,"Elsevier Publishing,Boston Massachusetts. Rosenfeld P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) "Anatomy Of An Odor Wheel" Water Science and Technology, In Press. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J.J.J., Hensley A.R., Suffet, I.H. (Mel) (2007) "The use of an odor wheel classification for evaluation of human health risk criteria for compost facilities."Water Science And Technology,In Press. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) "Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility." The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOXIN2006, August 21 — 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Rosenfeld,P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash",Water Science and Technology,Vol.49,No. 9.pp. 171-178. Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark J. J. and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Value of and Urban Odor Wheel." (2004). WEFTEC 2004. New Orleans,October 2-6,2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004) "Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids"Water Science and Technology.Vol.49,No. 9.pp 193-199. SWAPE 11 Rosenfeld CV Page 1427 Rosenfeld,P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004) "Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash",Water Science and Technology,Vol.49,No. 9.pp. 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004) Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows,Static Pile and Biofilter.Water Environment Research.76(4): 310-315 JUL-AUG 2004. Rosenfeld,P.E.,Grey,M., (2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium. Batelle Conference Orlando Florida.June 2 and June 6,2003. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. 2002. "Controlling Odors Using High Carbon Wood Ash." Biocycle, March 2002,Page 42. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). "Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento, California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS-6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. April 2002. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air pollution.Vol. 127 Nos. 1-4,pp. 173-191 Rosenfeld,P.E.,and Henry C. L.,2000. Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29:1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. 2001. Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity.Water Environment Research.73: 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. 2001. Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants Water Environment Research,73: 388-392. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., 2001. High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research.Volume 131 No. 1-4,pp.247-262 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings.Bellevue Washington. Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. 1998. Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond,Washington State. P.Rosenfeld. 1992. The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail.Heritage Magazine of St.Kitts,Vol. 3 No.2. P. Rosenfeld. 1993. High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, Vol. 7,No. 1, 1993. SWAPE 12 Rosenfeld CV Page 1428 P.Rosenfeld. 1992. British West Indies, St.Kitts. Surf Report,April issue. P.Rosenfeld. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil.Doctoral Thesis.University of Washington College of Forest Resources. P. Rosenfeld. 1994. Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees On Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County,California. P. Rosenfeld. 1991. How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World.Bachelors Thesis.University of California. England Environmental Agency, 2002. Landfill Gas Control Technologies. Publishing Organization Environment Agency,Rio House,Waterside Drive,Aztec West,Almondsbury BRISTOL,BS32 4UD Presentations Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. "Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water."Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston,MA,June 20-23,2010. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. "Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois."Urban Environmental Pollution, Boston,MA,June 20-23,2010. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009) "Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States" Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23,2009.Tuscon,AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009) "Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams(AFFF)at Airports in the United States"Presentation at the 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, April 19-23,2009.Tuscon,AZ. Rosenfeld,P. E. (2007)"Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility"Platform Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18, 2007. University of Massachusetts,Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) "The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant" Platform Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water,October 15-18,2007.University of Massachusetts,Amherst MA. SWAPE 13 Rosenfeld CV Page 1429 Rosenfeld, P. E. (2007) "Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions"Poster Presentation at the 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water, October 15-18,2007.University of Massachusetts,Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. "Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP)" — Platform Presentation at the Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS)Annual Meeting,San Diego,CA,3/2007 Rosenfeld P. E. "Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama"— Platform Presentation at the AEHS Annual Meeting, San Diego,CA,3/2007 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2006) "Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility." APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition, Boston Massachusetts.November 4 to 8th,2006. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals." Mealey's C8/PFOA Science,Risk&Litigation Conference"October 24,25. The Rittenhouse Hotel,Philadelphia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19.Hilton Hotel,Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP." PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. September 19.Hilton Hotel in Irvine,California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs."Mealey's Groundwater Conference. September 26,27.Ritz Carlton Hotel,Marina Del Ray,California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals." International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. June 7,8. Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel,Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Rate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals". 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. July 21-22, 2005. Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor,Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. "Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation." 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. July 21-22,2005.Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor,Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology,A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. May 5-6,2004.Congress Plaza Hotel,Chicago Illinois. SWAPE 14 Rosenfeld CV Page 1430 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D., 2004. Perchlorate Toxicology. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. March 7th,2004.Pheonix Arizona. Hagemann,M.F., Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D. and Rob Hesse, 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal representatives,Parker,AZ. Paul Rosenfeld,Ph.D.A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association.Radison Hotel,Sacramento,California.April 7,2004. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.February 20-21,2003.Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Marriott Hotel.Anaheim California.February 6-7,2003. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Sacramento California.October 23,2002 Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Barcelona Spain.October 7- 10. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. 2002. Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association.Barcelona Spain. October 7- 10. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association.Vancouver Washington. September 22-24. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. 2002. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Indianapolis, Maryland. November 11-14. Rosenfeld. P.E. 2000. Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Anaheim California. September 16,2000. Rosenfeld. P. E. 2000. Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. October 16, 2000.Ocean Shores, California Rosenfeld, P. E. 2000. Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Sacramento California. SWAPE 15 Rosenfeld CV Page 1431 Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings.Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld,P.E., and C.L. Henry. 1999. An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. 1998. Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil.Brown and Caldwell, Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. 1998. Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest Lake Chelan,Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. 1997. Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America,Anaheim California. Professional History Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise(SWAPE);2003 to present;Founding And Managing Partner UCLA School of Public Health;2007 to present;Lecturer(Asst Res) UCLA School of Public Health;2003 to 2006;Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program;2002-2004;Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment,2001-2002;Research Associate Komex H2O Science,2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association,2002-2004;Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001;Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego,2000-2001;Remediation Project Manager Ogden(now Amec), San Diego,2000-2000;Remediation Project Manager Bechtel,San Diego,California, 1999—2000;Risk Assessor King County,Seattle, 1996— 1999; Scientist James River Corp.,Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber,Davenport,California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp.,California and USFS,Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St.Kitts,West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Bureau of Land Management,Kremmling Colorado 1990; Scientist SWAPE 16 Rosenfeld CV Page 1432 Teaching Experience UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 2010) Teach Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focuses on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course In Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002.Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board,April and May,2001.Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego,Ventura,and San Francisco.Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5 2002 Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,Organic Soil Amendments,and Soil Stability. U.C.Berkeley,Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost.2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils.2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association,Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. SWAPS 17 Rosenfeld CV Page 1433 Kellogg Foundation,Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St.Kitts in West Indies. 1993. Cases that Dr. Rosenfeld Provided Deposition or Trial Testimony In the Court of Common Pleas for the Second Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina,County of Aiken David Anderson,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Norfolk Southern Corporation,et al.,Defendants. Case Number:2007-CP-02-1584 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Drummond Company Inc.,et al.,Defendants Civil action No.CV 2008-2076 In the Ninth Judicial District Court,Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana Roger Price,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Roy O.Martin,L.P.,et al.,Defendants. Civil Suit Number 224,041 Division G In the United States District Court,Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Citgo Petroleum Corporation,et al.,Defendants. Case Number 2:07CV1052 In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Carolyn Baker,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Chevron Oil Company,et al.,Defendants. Case Number 1:05 CV 227 In the Fourth Judicial District Court,Parish of Calcasieu,State of Louisiana Craig Steven Arabie,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Citgo Petroleum Corporation,et al.,Defendants. Case Number 07-2738 G In the Fourteenth Judicial District Court,Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana Leon B.Brydels,Plaintiffs,vs. Conoco,Inc.,et al.,Defendants. Case Number 2004-6941 Division A In the District Court of Tarrant County,Texas, 153`d Judicial District Linda Faust,Plaintiff,vs.Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company,Witco Chemical Corporation A/K/A Witco Corporation,Solvents and Chemicals,Inc. and Koppers Industries,Inc.,Defendants. Case Number 153-212928-05 In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino Leroy Allen,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Nutro Products,Inc.,a California Corporation and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,Defendants. John Loney,Plaintiff,vs.James H.Didion, Sr.;Nutro Products,Inc.;DOES 1 through 20,inclusive, Defendants. Case Number VCVVSO44671 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama,Northern Division James K.Benefield,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.International Paper Company,Defendant. Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles Leslie Hensley and Rick Hensley,Plaintiffs,vs.Peter T.Hoss,as trustee on behalf of the Cone Fee Trust; Plains Exploration&Production Company,a Delaware corporation;Rayne Water Conditioning,Inc.,a SWAPE 18 Rosenfeld CV Page 1434 California corporation;and DOES 1 through 100,Defendants. Case Number SC094173 In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria Branch Clifford and Shirley Adelhelm,et al.,all individually,Plaintiffs,vs.Unocal Corporation,a Delaware Corporation;Union Oil Company of California,a California corporation;Chevron Corporation,a California corporation;ConocoPhillips,a Texas corporation;Kerr-McGee Corporation,an Oklahoma corporation;and DOES 1 though 100,Defendants. Case Number 1229251 (Consolidated with case number 1231299) In the United States District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas,Eastern District of Arkansas Harry Stephens Farms,Inc,and Harry Stephens,individual and as managing partner of Stephens Partnership,Plaintiffs,vs.Helena Chemical Company,and Exxon Mobil Corp.,successor to Mobil Chemical Co.,Defendants. Case Number 2:06-CV-00166 JMM (Consolidated with case number 4:07CV00278 JMM) In the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,Texarkana Division Rhonda Brasel,et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.Weyerhaeuser Company and DOES 1 through 100,Defendants. Civil Action Number 07-4037 In The Superior Court of the State of California County of Santa Cruz Constance Acevedo,et al.Plaintiffs Vs.California Spray Company,et al.Defendants Case No CV 146344 In the District Court of Texas 21 St Judicial District of Burleson County Dennis Davis,Plaintiff vs.Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Way Company,Defendant. Case Number 25,151 SWAPE 19 Rosenfeld CV Page 1435 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Allen Matkins Attorneys at Law 865 South Figueroa Street,Suite 2800 I Los Angeles,CA 90017-2543 Telephone:213.622.5555 I Facsimile:213.620.8816 www.allenmatkins.com Fernando Villa E-mail:fvilla@allenmatkins.com Direct Dial:2139555647 File Number:373334.00014/4873-0695-9650.1 Via Electronic Mail May 31, 2022 Honorable City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Alta Cuvee - Proposed Mixed-Use Residential and Retail Project ("Project") at Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue ("Property") Dear Honorable Councilmembers: On behalf of Wood Partners ("Applicant"), we submit this letter in support of the Project and to respond to the appeal ("Appeal") filed by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility("SAFER")to the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") Planning Commission's ("Commission") April 13, 2022 adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") (SCH 202190012) and approval of the Project's Design Review application (DRC2020-00440). The Project, known as Alta Cuvee,—a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development consisting of 259 apartment units, two ground floor commercial units totaling 2,253 square feet, and one live/work unit of 816 square feet—will provide the City with high quality housing options and neighborhood-serving commercial retail ideally situated at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue to encourage pedestrian activity along this key City activity node and further the City's vision for a vibrant, walkable Foothill Boulevard. As explained below, the Commission properly determined, for the reasons set forth in Resolution No. 22-09, that the Project will be compatible and appropriate for the neighborhood, will comply with all requirements of the City's Development Code and General Plan at the time the application was deemed complete, and will not cause any significant environmental impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures set forth in the MND. The arguments raised in the Appeal do not have any basis in law or fact and therefore do not undermine the Commission's conclusions or require that the City prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR"). Accordingly, the City Council ("Council") should deny the Appeal and sustain the Commission's adoption of the MND and approval of Design Review. Los Angeles I Orange County!San Diego I Century City I San Francisco Attachment 4 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 2 1. Procedural Background Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City prepared an Initial Study and draft MND, dated August 2021 and authored by AECOM ("Draft MND"), which found that the Project would not cause any significant environmental effects with the imposition of mitigation measures. The Draft MND was circulated for public review from September 1, 2021 through October 1, 2021. Among other public and agency comment letters on the Draft MND, the City received a comment letter from Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of SAFER on October 1, 2021 ("October 1, 2021 Comment Letter"). AECOM prepared responses to all public comments ("RTCs") received on the Draft MND, as well as a revised MND that incorporated revisions to address various public comments received. These revisions did not identify new, or exacerbated existing, significant environmental impacts, and thus the MND's overall conclusions remained the same. However, in keeping with the Applicant's commitment to address public comments, the revised MND included clarifications and supplemental information to better explain the MND's conclusions, and offer voluntary mitigation measures that the Applicant agreed to implement. The revised MND was recirculated for public comment from February 8, 2022 through February 28, 2022. SAFER did not submit a comment letter on the revised MND during this period. The revised MND, RTCs, comment letters, technical appendices, and other documents required by CEQA(collectively, "Final MND")were submitted to the Commission for consideration. On April 13, 2022, the day of the Commission meeting, SAFER submitted a new comment letter("April 13, 2022 Comment Letter") reiterating the issues raised in their October 1, 2021 Comment Letter and alleging the Final MND was inadequate because it did not modify the Biological Resources Assessment and air quality and greenhouse gas ("GHG") analyses to include their prior comments. On April 20, 2022, following the Commission's approval of the Project and adoption of the MND, SAFER filed the Appeal, incorporating as the basis for the Appeal the October 1, 2021 Comment Letter and April 13, 2022 Comment Letter. 2. The MND's Conclusions Are Supported by Substantial Evidence and No EIR is Required SAFER's Appeal alleges that the Commission incorrectly adopted the MND and should have instead required an EIR because the MND's analyses and technical studies of biological resources, air quality, GHG, and noise were deficient in various ways. These claims have no merit, and we address each in turn below. No EIR is required "unless substantial evidence in light of the whole record supports a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. In the absence of such a finding, the adoption of a [MND] must be upheld. (Citizens for Responsible Development v. City of West Hollywood(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 490, 498.) The challenger bears the Page 1437 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 3 burden to show with record citation the existence of"substantial evidence" of significant impacts. (South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point(2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1612.) If no such evidence exists or the challenger fails to cite to it, an MND cannot be overturned. (Id.,p. 1613.) This mandate is fundamental to preventing CEQA from being used as "an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic or recreational development or advancement." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15003(j) ("CEQA Guidelines").) The fair argument standard is often characterized as a "low threshold," but courts have made it clear that they "must give the lead agency the benefit of the doubt on any legitimate, disputed issues of credibility" since the lead agency "has the discretion to determine whether evidence offered by the citizens claiming a fair argument exists meets [CEQA's] definition of substantial evidence." (Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 771, 781.) Further, the evidence must be substantial "in light of the whole record." (Pub. Res. Code, § 21082.2(a); Citizens'Corn. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont(1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1168.) The Legislature added this phrase to CEQA in 1993, which recognizes that some evidence, if viewed in isolation, might seem to support a fair argument but may ultimately prove insubstantial after other information in the record shows that the evidence is merely speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, inaccurate, or misleading. (See Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.), § 1.25;see CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.) The court in Citizens'Committee explained: "[W]hether or not evidence is "substantial" is in itself a weighing process. The court does not look only to the evidence relied upon by appellants to the exclusion of all contrary evidence. Evidence that rebuts, contradicts or diminishes the reliability or credibility of appellants' evidence is properly considered. The absence of supporting evidence is properly considered." (Id., p. 1168.) As explained below, the Appeal does not contain or cite to substantial evidence showing a fair argument that the City must prepare an EIR. SAFER's claims are based on speculation, unsupported opinions, and misunderstandings about leading agency guidance for evaluating significant impacts. AECOM explained in great detail in the RTCs why SAFER's critiques of the Draft MND's analyses in their October 1, 2021 Comment Letter did not affect the Draft MND's conclusions. When the Commission rendered its decision on April 13, 2022, it had the benefit of AECOM's technical explanations in the RTCs before it, as well as the verbal explanations from the Applicant and their counsel explaining that the April 13, 2022 Comment Letter merely reiterated the prior comments.1 AECOM has since also prepared formal written responses to the April 13, 2022 Comment Letter, which confirms again that the additional letter raises no new issues. We concur with and enclose another copy of the RTCs as Exhibit"A", which are also attached to the Final 1 Because SAFER submitted the April 13,2022 Comment Letter on the day of the Commission meeting,AECOM did not have time to prepare a formal written response. Page 1438 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 4 MND as Appendix N, as well as AECOM's written responses to the April 13, 2022 Comment Letter as Exhibit"B" (hereafter, reference to the "RTCs" shall mean AECOM's collective responses to both the October 1, 2021 and April 13, 2022 Comment Letters). For the Council's convenience, we summarize the RTCs as follows, without repeating each one, as well as our additional views showing why SAFER's contentions lack merit. a. The Final MND is not deficient for omitting an analysis of indoor emissions from formaldehyde. SAFER incorrectly claims that the Final MND is deficient for omitting an analysis of the Project's creation of formaldehyde in indoor air. SAFER ignores the current 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24) that regulates formaldehyde in composite wood products in new construction to, according to the California Air Resources Board("CARB"), levels protective of public health and safety, and the Project, as new construction, must comply with these standards.2 SAFER does not acknowledge the current regulatory requirements or provide any analysis why those requirements do not address their concerns. Instead, SAFER cites an inapplicable, outdated study of indoor air quality within single family homes, not multi-family apartments ("HENGH Study"). As the RTCs explain in more detail, the HENGH Study(a) applied a prior version of Title 24 from 2008 with now outdated ventilation and infiltration standards that have since been updated twice and greatly influence indoor air quality, (b)used exposure parameters that are inconsistent with current Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment("OEHHA") guidance for these types of studies, (c)was based on single family homes approximately three times larger than the average apartment for the Project, and(d) did not have a control or method to distinguish how much of the identified formaldehyde emissions were from composite wood product versus other project features that also cause formaldehyde emissions. Because of the marked differences between the Project and the HENGH Study's baseline conditions and objectives, the HENGH Study has no evidentiary value for purposes of studying formaldehyde emissions that the Project might cause. As such, SAFER does not raise a formaldehyde issue which is not already addressed by the Project's compliance with current residential building standards, nor do they provide a valid basis for the Final MND to consider the HENGH Study or apply it to the Project. b. The Final MND is not deficient for omitting consideration of an increased cancer risk due to the Project's proximity to certain roadways and uses. SAFER also incorrectly claims that the Final MND failed to consider the increased cancer risk due to the Project's location adjacent to certain roadways and uses. Directly contrary to SAFER's claim, the Final MND and associated technical studies do consider whether the Project would exacerbate air emissions from mobile sources in the Project vicinity, including the roadways 2 See Planning Department Condition of Approval 30 and Building and Safety Services Department Condition of Approval 1 requiring compliance the California Building Code,which includes the current California Green Building Standards Code,both of which the City has adopted in their entirety per Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code§ 15.04.010. Page 1439 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 5 listed by SAFER, and found that the Project's daily PM2.5 concentrations would be far below the Southcoast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") applicable regional and local significance thresholds. (Final MND, Table 4.3-2, p. 4-12; Appendix N, p. 9.) In any event, the 500' buffer distance recommended by CARB between sensitive land uses and major pollutant emissions reveals the insubstantial quality of SAFER's claim. The Project is located three and six times, respectively, further from the I-15 and Auto Club Speedway than CARB's recommendation, and Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue do not qualify as a major urban roadway for purposes of CARB's recommended buffer zone because they experience less than half of the daily traffic for such roadways. Accordingly, the Final MND's technical analyses and prevailing regulatory guidance indicate that no further risk analysis is warranted for those roadways and uses beyond what the MND already includes in order to protect health and safety. c. The Final MND's wildlife baseline is supported by substantial evidence based on a valid Biological Resources Assessment. In SAFER's critique of the Final MND's wildlife baseline from the reasoned analysis in the Biological Resources Assessment(Appendix B of the Final MND) ("BSA"), SAFER raises only highly speculative claims about the possible presence of special-status species based on tangential, generalized observations. Of key importance, SAFER ignores entirely that the purpose of the reconnaissance field survey conducted for the BSA was not to locate special-status species themselves, as their consultant claims, but rather to identify high-quality habitat for special-status species, which is a survey that can be conducted at any time of day. The Final MND correctly concluded that special-status species were unlikely to occur onsite because no such habitat was observed during the survey, in conjunction with significant change and development activity and ongoing intrusive human activity such as traffic and domestic animals in the Project vicinity since the 19-year old California Natural Diversity Database records noted observances of four special- status species at unspecified locations in the geographic area. Notably, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which also commented on the draft MND, did not criticize how the reconnaissance field survey was conducted or its conclusion. Instead of acknowledging the BSA's reasoned analysis, SAFER claims the Final MND's evaluation is incomplete because (1) SAFER's biologist found in the database review record of "marginal habitat" for two special-status species in the Project vicinity, and (2) observed during their own site visit 24 species of vertebrate wildlife and ground squirrels across the street from the Project. As explained in the RTCs, these observations did not need to be included in the BSA and do not undermine the Final MND's conclusions because reliance on this type of evidence for the presence of special-status species onsite would be highly speculative. "Marginal habitat" indicates a marginal or very low probability that those species exist in the area and does not, by itself, warrant further investigation. As for the observed vertebrates and ground squirrels, those species are not candidate, sensitive or special status species, and they are common and widespread throughout the region. Therefore, their mere presence does not indicate special status species without further Page 1440 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 6 indicia such as special-status species habitat, of which the BSA found none. CEQA, therefore, does not require that these claims be evaluated further such as in an EIR. d. The alleged loss of breeding capacity is speculative and properly omitted from the Final MND. SAFER claims that the Project would result in the removal of 35 annual nests of unspecified ground nesting bird species. This claim is also pure speculation. According to the Appeal, SAFER's consultant calculated the number 35 using a method in two studies that were conducted elsewhere in North America, and certainly not on the Project site or within the Project vicinity. (See, e.g., Citizens for Responsible Development v. City of West Hollywood(1995) 39 Ca1.App.4th 490, 501-502 (studies involving different, unrelated scenarios have no evidentiary weight).) In direct contrast to these inapplicable studies, AECOM did not observe any ground nests, ground nesting birds, special or special-status plan or wildlife species within the Project site or vicinity. (RTCs, p. 12.) SAFER's tenuous evidence collapses in the face of actual site conditions that show otherwise. Furthermore, in an abundance of caution, Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 serve as a backstop by requiring pre-construction surveys for birds, nests, and eggs. e. The alleged habitat fragmentation and impacts on wildlife movement do not apply to the Project and were properly omitted from the Final MND. SAFER also incorrectly claims that the Final MND fails to address the Project's capacity to cause to habitat fragmentation. As detailed in the RTCs, habitat fragmentation cannot occur without the presence of wildlife migration corridors, and no such corridors exist within the Project site or vicinity. Similarly, SAFER claims the Final MND does not address impacts to wildlife movements. To the contrary, the Final MND expressly considers whether the Project will interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife species, wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites. (MND,p. 4-22.) Due to the lack of suitable habitats or food supplies for such activities, the Final MND concluded the Project would not impede wildlife movement. And to the extent any species already navigate through this highly urbanized area, the Project would not further impact that movement. f. The alleged wildlife impacts from window and vehicle collisions are speculative and properly omitted from the Final MND. Similar to the alleged loss of breeding capacity, SAFER again offers wildly speculative claims based on inapplicable studies that birds and other wildlife will be colliding with the Project's buildings and vehicles at extraordinarily high rates—almost daily for birds and nearly 9 times a day for other wildlife. SAFER and their consultants do not provide any details about the studies on which they rely for their calculations to show that the projects studied or incidence of special-status wildlife therein were comparable to the Project's or region's conditions. (See, e.g., Citizens for Responsible Development,supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501-502 (studies involving different, Page 1441 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 7 unrelated scenarios have no evidentiary weight).) Importantly, CEQA calls on agencies to analyze a Project's impacts on special-status species, and as described in detailed in the Final MND and BSA, special-status species are unlikely to occur onsite or in the Project vicinity. Collisions with these species cannot occur unless the species are present. Moreover, the Project site is located in a highly urbanized environment with heavy traffic, and thus the Project will not change already- existing conditions. g. The MND's Pre-Construction Surveys appropriately mitigate any risk to bird and bat species based on the level of risk present. SAFER also incorrectly alleges that detection surveys should be conducted to mitigate any risk to bird and bat species. While a detection survey could potentially provide relevant information, as well, the MND properly determined it was not warranted based on the very low likelihood these species were present on site based on the BSA's findings. "Under CEQA, an agency is not required to conduct all possible tests or exhaust all research methodologies to evaluate impacts. Simply because an additional test may be helpful does not mean an agency must complete the test to comply with the requirements of CEQA." (Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 503, 524.) Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the Applicant will be required to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats per Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3. These mitigation measures are a middle ground between the low likelihood of the presence of these animals and fact that their presence cannot be ruled out with absolute certainty. Pre-construction surveys such as BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 are industry standard mitigation measures that California courts and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have found adequately protect against impacts to wildlife resources,particularly in the case here where there is a very low likelihood, but not impossibility, that the resource may be present. (Save Panoche Valley, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at pp. 524-526.) h. The Final MND properly used Project-specific inputs for the air quality and GHG modeling based on regulatory standards and recommendations. The Project's air quality and GHG analyses are based in part on anticipated Project emissions calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model ("CalEEMod"),which is the preferred regulatory tool for estimating air pollutant emissions associated with land use development in California developed using methodologies and data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, CalRecycle and other environmental regulatory agencies. (Final MND,p. 4-9; CalEEMod User's Guide, Version 2020.4.0,p. 1 ("CalEEMod Guide"), available for download at http://www.agmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.) SAFER alleges that the Final MND's air quality and GHG analyses should have used default data for generic land use projects as the CalEEMod inputs, specifically for land use square footage, residential floor surface area, architectural and area coating emission factors, residential fireplaces, CO2 intensity factors, project parking, solid waste generation, vehicle fleet mix percentage, "water exposed area," and off-road construction Page 1442 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 8 equipment horsepower values. This claim has no merit and serves no purpose other than to needlessly inflate the Project's anticipated emissions. Instead of using the default data provided by the CalEEMod Guide, the Final MND's modeling used Project-specific information for the above categories based on the Project's design or required compliance with regulatory requirements, which is much more logical than SAFER's proposal so that the Project's impacts, if any, can be addressed. For instance, in lieu of the default solid waste generation rates, the Draft(and Final) MND used the Project's actual anticipated solid waste generation rate identified in the Initial Study since the Project's design was sufficiently known to establish that rate. (Final MND, Appendix K, p. 3; RTCs, p. 16.) The Project-specific data actually revealed the Project's waste generation rate to be nearly five times greater than the default rate (though still below the applicable GHG emissions threshold). (Ibid.) As another example, the Draft(and Final) MND reduced the default values for architectural and area coating emission factors because the Project will be required to comply with stricter standards for such coatings set by SCAQMD Rule 1113. Compliance with regulatory requirements, including rules such as SCAQMD Rule 1113 that implement the Clean Air Act, is required by state and federal law for projects like the Project. (42 U.S.C.A. § 7410; 40 C.F.R. § 52.220, SCAQMD Rule 1113.) There would be no justification for the air quality and GHG analyses to assume that the Project will violate federal and state regulations. SAFER's air quality and GHG consultant does not provide any justification or facts supporting why the default inputs would better further CEQA's goal of reducing environmental impacts than Project-specific data. An expert's opinion cannot constitute substantial evidence under CEQA in the absence of facts supporting it. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384.(b).) Indeed, SAFER's proposal would not improve the environment, but instead only needlessly increase project costs and regulatory enforcement efforts and costs in a futile attempt to address environmental impacts that will never in fact materialize. As indicated above, the default data could even in certain cases result in the emissions analysis failing to identify significant impacts when it underestimates the Project intensity. In support of the Final MND's approach and contrary to SAFER's proposal, the CalEEMod Guide states that CalEEMod provides "default data that can be used when site-specific information is not available." (CalEEMod Guide,p. 1)(emphasis added.) The CalEEMod Guide further advises that, "For any project that substantially deviates from the types and features included in the surveys, site-specific data that are supported by substantial evidence should be used, if available." (Ibid.) For each and every default input that was revised to reflect the actual Project design, the Final MND provides a justification, as explained in detail in the RTCs. To the extent the City's justifications for modifying the CalEEMod inputs were not clearly stated in the Draft MND, the RTCs provided more detailed justifications and the Draft MND was updated accordingly and the public was provided a chance to review the clarified justifications in the Final MND. Page 1443 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 9 Note that Section 4.3 (Air Quality), Section 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), and Appendices A and F to the Draft MND have also been revised as the Project design became more refined in order to more accurately reflect the proposed Project. The adjustments changed the CalEEMod inputs, but they did not result in any new substantial impacts or exacerbate existing impacts. These adjustments to the Draft MND and CalEEMod analysis were incorporated and reflected in the Final MND recirculated to the public. i. The Final MND's air quality and GHG modeling did not omit air quality and GHG impacts by initially providing only winter daily emissions. SAFER incorrectly claimed that the Draft MND's air model analysis needed to be redone because it initially only reported winter daily emissions. As explained in the RTCs, the difference between summer and winter emissions is nominal and does not change the Draft MND's conclusion that the Project's emissions are far below the regional SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants. (Final MND, Tables 4.3-1, 4.3-2; RTCs, p. 17.) Nonetheless, for clarification purposes, the Final MND includes the summer daily emissions, validating the discussion in the RTCs that the differences between summer and winter emissions are nominal and do not indicate new or exacerbated impacts. j. The Final MND properly did not include an operational health risk assessment based on agency guidance, and included a construction health risk assessment. SAFER wrongly asserts that the Final MND should have included an operational health risk analysis ("HRA") to assess the Project's potential to emit diesel particulate matter("DPM"). As explained in the RTCs, CARB, the agency that regulates air quality in the Project's air basin, does not require residential land use projects to prepare operational HRAs because such projects do not involve mobile or stationary sources of substantial toxic air contaminant("TAC") emissions. The types of projects required to prepare this HRA exemplify why residential land use projects are exempted: distribution centers, rail yards,ports, refineries, chrome platers, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities. SAFER does not provide any evidence why the Project might general substantial TAC emissions warranting an operational HRA despite no requirement to do so from CARB. Because an operational HRA is inapplicable to the Project, the Final MND was not required to perform or discuss one. The sample HRA that SAFER offers does not support its misguided posture. (October 1, 2021 Comment Letter, Exhibit C.) As detailed in the RTCs, that HRA significantly inflates the Project's DPM emissions by inaccurately representing the number of sources of diesel fuel combustion for this residential project. Based on such faulty modeling assumptions, SAFER's operational HRA is not representative of the Project and does not undermine the MND's air quality analysis. Page 1444 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 10 Regarding construction, the Final MND does, contrary to SAFER's claim, include an inhalation-pathway HRA to analyze exposures to DPM during construction in accordance with 2015 OEHHA HRA guidelines and utilizing the Project's specific construction schedule and equipment inventory. The HRA found that the Project would not cause DPM emissions during construction which pose TAC-related health concerns for nearby sensitive receptors. SAFER does not provide substantial evidence to undermine the HRA's conclusions—instead relying on its own CalEEMod analysis that uses default inputs rather than Project-specific information. As discussed above, default inputs are inappropriate and do not further CEQA's goals where Project-specific information is available. k. The Final MND used the appropriate GHG significance threshold based on agency guidance. SAFER claims that the Final MND's GHG quantitative analysis should have used SCAQMD's 2035 efficiency target for its significance threshold rather than SCAQMD's recommended screening threshold which the Final MND used. As an initial matter, SAFER and its air quality and GHG consultant provide absolutely no evidentiary basis for or explanation why the City should use the 2035 efficiency target over the screening threshold other than stating vaguely that they"recommend" it. (See October 1, 2021 Comment Letter, Exhibit C, p. 23.) An expert's opinion cannot constitute substantial evidence under CEQA in the absence of facts supporting it, and indeed a complete absence of factual support is fatal to the claim. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384(b); South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point(2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1612-1613 ("SOCWA").) In any event, as the RTCs explain in more detail, the screening threshold used for the Final MND's GHG analysis is the current threshold recommended by SCAQMD, the expert agency in charge of permitting and enforcement related to air pollution, because it is a balance between capturing stationary source projects that account for significant portions of statewide GHG emissions while exempting smaller projects (such as the Project) that, in the aggregate, only contribute a small fraction of statewide GHG emissions. In fact, SAFER's consultant does not dispute that the significance threshold used in the Final MND is SCAQMD's recommended threshold. (October 1, 2022 Comment Letter, Exhibit C,p. 22.) Instead, the consultant implies that the 2035 efficiency target has been adopted by SCAQMD more recently to replace the MND's significance threshold. (Ibid.) This inaccurate claim is highly misleading and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of SCAQMD's prevailing guidance on this topic. SCAQMD's prevailing guidance on how to evaluate the significance of a project's GHG impacts is set forth in SCAQMD's Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significant Threshold Draft Guidance Document (October 2008) ("GHG Interim Guidance "), which is the guidance utilized in the Final MND (see MND, p. 4-36). The GHG Interim Guidance is attached hereto as Exhibit"C." SCAQMD recommends per the GHG Interim Guidance that the significance of a project's GHG impacts for CEQA purposes be evaluated using a tiered approach. (Exhibit C, pp. 3- 9 to 3-17.) If a project does not satisfy the Tier 1 threshold, then the project continues on to check compliance with the Tier 2 threshold, and so on. (Id. at p. 3-11.) If at any Tier, the project is found Page 1445 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 11 to comply with that Tier, then the analysis ends and the Project is deemed to have less than significant GHG impacts. (Ibid.) The Project complied with the Tier 3 threshold(the significance threshold discussed in the Final MND) and was therefore screened out from further analysis in accordance with the GHG Interim Guidance. Directly contrary to the claim by SAFER's consultants, SCAQMD has not subsequently adopted a 2035 efficiency target to replace the tiered approach in the GHG Interim Guidance. Instead, this target was considered by AQMD for incorporation into the GHG Interim Guidance. The only evidence their consultant cited to makes this very clear—a set of 2010 meeting minutes from an AQMD Working Group that met over several years to leading up to the publication of the GHG Interim Guidance for the purpose of crafting that very guidance document. Those meeting minutes cited by SAFER are attached hereto as Exhibit "D." SAFER's recommendation to apply the 2035 efficiency target falls apart quickly upon review of these meeting minutes. Consistent with the GHG Interim Guidance, the meeting minutes reflect AQMD staff's recommendation for the tiered approach to GHG analysis and the Tier 3 screening threshold that the MND applies to the Project. (Exhibit D, p. 1.) The meetings also reflect that AQMD staff considered incorporating the 2035 efficiency target as part of Tier 4, meaning that projects screened out at Tiers 1-3 (which the Project was) would not analyze the 2035 efficiency target. (Exhibit D, p. 2.) Accordingly, SAFER provides no valid basis for using the 2035 efficiency target for this Project. SAFER also claims the Final MND should have included analysis of the Project's consistency with the performance standards in CARB's Scoping Plan and Southern California Association of Government's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Reliance on SCAQMD's screening threshold, however, which showed the Project will not cause significant GHG impacts,precludes the need for further GHG analysis. 1. The alleged insufficiency of the MND's noise analysis should be dismissed outright for SAFER's failure to provide any evidentiary support. SAFER summarily declares that"Although the IS/MND concludes that mitigation measures included in the IS/MND will place noise impacts under significance thresholds, substantial evidence exists in the IS/MND and related appendix that demonstrates there still could be significant noise impacts despite the IS/MND's noise mitigation measures." (October 1, 2021 Comment Letter,p. 30.) SAFER does not provide any further explanation or support, or point to any specific information in the Final MND or Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment(Appendix H to the Final MND) that it believes shows a significant noise impact or the insufficiency of the proposed mitigation. SAFER's failure to support their argument with any evidentiary basis or citation to the record is fatal to their claim. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384; SOCWA, 196 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1612- 1613.) SAFER's claim should therefore be dismissed outright. Page 1446 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 12 m. The MND was not required to treat project design features and regulatory compliance as mitigation measures. SAFER also incorrectly alleges that the MND should have considered the Project's design features and compliance with regulatory requirements as mitigation measures rather than the Project's baseline. (October 1, 2021 Comment Letter, pp. 25-26.) Specifically, SAFER cites to the Project's energy efficient elements, including compliance with the 2019 Title 24 energy efficiency standards for residential buildings, and the Project's compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding control of Fugitive Dust. This is contrary to CEQA. CEQA requires that an environmental document's Project Description include the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics relevant to the CEQA analysis. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15124.) Mitigation is only needed when a project, taking into account all elements of that project's design, causes a significant or potentially significant impact. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15021, 15126.4(a)(3), (4).) When a project is designed at the outset to include features that result in a less than significant impact, mitigation is unnecessary and cannot be imposed through CEQA. Here, the Final MND properly considered whether the Project, with the energy efficient elements and compliance with SCAQMD rules incorporated, would cause significant environmental impacts. To the extent SAFER alleges that those project design features and regulatory compliance should not be incorporated because they are not required, this allegation is unfounded. Planning Department Conditions of Approval 23 and 30, and Building and Safety Services Department Condition of Approval 1, require that the Project comply with its approved plans, the City's Development Code, and the California Building Code, which includes the current California Green Building Standards Code,both of which the City has adopted in their entirety per Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code § 15.04.010. With regard to regulatory compliance, state and federal law require that the Project comply with SCAQMD rules that implement the Clean Air Act, such as Rule 403. (42 U.S.C.A. § 7410; 40 C.F.R. § 52.220, SCAQMD Rule 1113.) There is no justification for analyzing a project based on the assumption that it will violate federal and state regulations. 3. Conclusion As summarized above and demonstrated by the robust record for this Project, the Commission's approval of Design Review and adoption of the Final MND were based on substantial evidence. For the reasons above, SAFER's Appeal does not under the Commission's Page 1447 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable City Council May 31, 2022 Page 13 findings and conclusions, and therefore this Council should deny the Appeal and uphold the Commission's approval Design Review and adoption of the Final MND. Very truly yours, Fernando Villa FV Enclosures cc: Page 1448 Exhibit A Responses to Comments,Appendix N to MND Exhibit A -1- Page 1449 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Inland Empire Bike Alliance Comment Letter Comment Section/Subtopic Page(s) Response MND Reference. 1 Untitled 1 This comment includes introductory remarks and states that the Project as proposed does not meet and is in conflict with the city policies.It does not state a specific concern or question N/A (Introduction) regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis in the Draft IS/MND.No further response to this comment is required. 2 "Planned Class II 1-3 The commenter recommends installing a Class IV separated bikeway in lieu of the proposed painted Class II bike lane given the average motor traffic speeds and traffic volume on Etiwanda Section 4.7,pages 4-62 bike lanes are Avenue and Foothill Boulevard.The commenter cites the Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration's design guidelines and states that a Class IV bikeway satisfies the City's General Plan through 4-64 woefully objective of increasing bicycle use,whereas a Class II lane does not.This comment refers to Section 4.17(Transportation),pages 4-62 through 4-64 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative adequate" Declaration(IS/MND). This comment references the quality of bike lane design for the Project. However,as the Project complies with applicable requirements of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the City's interpretation of its Community Mobility policies(as set forth below),this comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND and no further project modifications or responses are required. Class I I(5')vs. Class IV(7') The minimum width of a Class II bike lane,as bolded in section 301.2 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual,is four feet.There is additional guidance that is not mandatory(as indicated by the underlying nature of the guidance and use of the word"should",both indicating a desired standard,not a required standard)which provides the additional guidance noted by the Bike Alliance: that,on higher speed facilities,the bikeway should be wider.The commentor is correct that although a five-foot bikeway meets the bolded requirement of the design manual,additional width should be considered for facilities with higher travel speeds.On Foothill Boulevard,the#1 travel lane is shown at 13 feet.This lane could be narrowed so that the bikeway width can be widened to six feet as noted in the guidance.For Etiwanda Avenue,the bikeway along the project frontage is approaching a traffic control signal,where vehicles will be slowing due to the intersection and depending on prevailing speeds in this area,a five foot bikeway should be sufficient.Please note that the site plan and roadway improvement plans require additional refinement and review through the City of Rancho Cucamonga before they are approved for construction.As such,refinements and/or adjustment to the bikeway lane widths,if any,will be conducted at the plan check phase of the Project in accordance with the City's design requirements and in coordination with City planning. The comment also refers to General Plan Policies regarding Community Mobility,CM-1.2,2.1 and 4.1;as well as Economic Development,ED-3.4,which are noted below: -Policy CM-1.2-Provide an integrated network of roadways that provides for convenient automobile,transit,bicycle,and pedestrian circulation movement around the City. -Policy CM-2.1-Facilitate bicycling and walking citywide. -Policy CM-4.1-Continue to implement traffic management and traffic signal operation measures along the arterial roadway to minimize delay and congestion for all modes,without adversely impacting transit,bicycles,and pedestrians. -Policy ED-3.4-Improve internal circulation for all modes of transportation,consistent with the concept of"Complete Streets." These policies have since been replaced by those set forth in Plan RC,the City's General Plan Update adopted by the City Council on December 15,2021,which is now the governing document for the proposed Project. Furthermore,these policies and those set forth in the General Plan Update all support the implementation of complete streets,as noted by the commentor.However,none of the prior or updated General Plan policies require implementation of specific bicycle facilities on specific roadways,and none identify the need for a Class IV facility on Foothill or Etiwanda.Additionally,Class IV separated bikeways are most effective in areas with limited driveway cuts as separated bikeway design implementation becomes complicated at conflict points like driveways.Foothill and Etiwanda both have frequent conflict points where implementation of a Class IV facility may be problematic.Finally,implementation of Class IV facilities would require dedicated signal phasing for the protected bikeway—something that becomes problematic if these corridors are prioritized for autos and transit. One final consideration involves other facilities that the City has identified as part of its General Plan Update as priority bike corridors that parallel both of these corridors.The first is the PE trail alignment,that generally parallels Foothill Boulevard to the north and is a Class I off-street facility.Additionally,parallel to Etiwanda Avenue are two north/south facilities:Day Creek Boulevard and the Etiwanda Creek Channel,both of which would provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle accessibility within the city.Finally,the City is undertaking a comprehensive review of active transportation throughout the city.Additional refinement to facility types will be developed through that effort to continue delivering better infrastructure for both bikes and pedestrians in the City. The comment is noted that it is important to develop infrastructure correctly.Please note,the project site consists of a tiny percentage of each corridor—for successful implementation of comprehensive facilities,those facilities need to be implemented at a corridor connectivity scale.6th Street is a great example of this—where the City is attempting to implement infrastructure at a corridor level.The comment is not completely correct as it relates to 6th Street.Although the City did apply through the State's ATP twice for funding of that project,it ultimately has been funded through SBCTA's ATP funding allocation portion.The project is currently under design review by the City and SBCTA for implementation along the 6th Street corridor. It is noted that Class IV facilities are on-street bikeways and are not wide sidewalks which are typically off-street.Since this is not a design level review sufficient for construction purposes,the CD ultimate design decisions will be addressed usingCityand Caltrans standards duringthe design reviewprocess.All designs will be reviewed and approved bythe Cityprior to implementation. 9 9 9 PPP en O Page 1 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Subtopic Page(s) Response MND Reference 3 Beveled/splayed 3 See Response 2.In addition to suggesting that the proposed Project include Class IV bikeways,the commenter also recommends that the curbs adjacent to the bikeways have beveled/splayed N/A edges edges,be paved at an intermediate height between the level of the sidewalk and the roadbed,and that the bikeway and bus pullout not directly intersect.The comment is noted regarding preferred bikeway design considerations.As previously noted,the final design will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation and the final design will consider these types of treatments based on City and Caltrans design requirements.Finally,it is noted that as this comment references the quality of final bikeway design but does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND no further response is required by CEQA. 4 Provide See Response 2.The commenter states that the project should provide the appropriate bike facility per the policies and goals of the City's General Plan and fails to meet the goals which promote Section 4.17,pages 4-69 appropriate bike a shift in travel mode.This comment is noted and also addressed in previous responses related to the complexity of integrating protected bikeways with signalized intersections and driveways. through 4-71 facility per the Additionally,consideration should be given to the City's priority roadway network,where parallel routes to these facilities have been identified as preferred bikeway facilities.In the north/south General Plan direction,Etiwanda Creek and Day Creek Boulevard both have been identified as preferred bikeway facilities.For east-west connectivity,the PE Trail has been identified as the preferred bikeway facility.These considerations do not mean that bikes should not be provided along Etiwanda and Foothill,but that other modes of travel need to be considered to provide mobility for all through the City's Layered Networks approach to delivering complete streets. 5 "Lack of 3-4 The commenter recommends providing a bicycle and pedestrian(non-motorized)connection between the Project site and the cul-de-sac of Vine Street directly east of the Project site,which N/A connectivity" would allow those wishing to visit the new commercial spaces proposed by the Project via alternative modes of transportation.The commenter states that this improvement would put the project in compliance with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan,citing Policies CM-1.2,CM-2.1,CM-3.14,ED-3.4,and Goal CM-3.The text of these now outdated General Plan policies are Provide bike/ped reflected in Response 2 above,with the exception of CM 3.14,which reads as follows:"Enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to local and regional transit,including facilitating connections to connection to transit." This comment also references Section 1.5.1.2(Vehicular and Pedestrian Access),page 1-14 of the Project Description for the IS/MND. Vine St.cul-de- sac The comment is noted that connectivity would provide better accessibility to the neighborhood east of the project site.However,during outreach discussions with that neighborhood,it was made clear that they did not want this project to connect to their neighborhood.As such,this is not an oversight in design. Rather,the project design reflects input received from the residents of that neighborhood. The final design will comply with the policies set forth in the General Plan Update,and will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation and the final design will consider these types of treatments based on City and Caltrans design requirements. 6 Community Trail The commenter mentions an additional interest is that such a connection would be able to form a preferred route to provide access to the Community Trail planned for the Etiwanda Creek/utility N/A preferred route corridor approximately 800 feet east of the Project site.This comment is noted that additional connectivity to bikeway facilities east of the project site is of interest and is prioritized in the City's General Plan Update. 7 Summary 4 This comment includes closing remarks and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis in the Draft MND.No further response to N/A this comment is required. 8 Table 1 5 The commenter provides a table of selected goals and policies from the City's 2010 General Plan(now superseded by PlanRC 2040)but does not state a specific concern or question regarding N/A the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft MND.As such,no further response to this comment is required under CEQA. 0) CO CD Ui Page 2 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment Letter Comment Section/Subtopic Page(s) Response IS/MNDReference Untitled(Introduction) 1 This comment includes introductory remarks.No further response to this comment is required. N/A 2 CDFW Role 1 This comment includes introductory remarks.No further response to this comment is required. N/A 3 Project Description Summary 1 This comment describes the project description and does not state a specific concern or question regarding any physical impact to the environment or the adequacy of the N/A environmental impact analysis in the Draft IS/MND.No further response to this comment is required. 4 Comments and 1-2 The commenter agrees that an IS/MND would be appropriate for the Project with the addition and implementation of minimization and mitigation measures including those Section 4.4,Biological Recommendations recommended by CDFW and requests the IS/MND adequately disclose impacts and measures prior to finalization of the IS/MND.As further discussed in Responses 5 Resources,pages 4-14 and 6 below,the IS/MND has been revised to incorporate the recommendations provided by CDFW. through 4-17 5 Western Yellow Bat and Nesting 2-3 The commenter requests that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in Section 4.4(Biological Resources),page 4-15 of the IS/MND,which outlines a pre-construction survey and Section 4.4,Biological Birds habitat avoidance and minimization measures for nesting birds and bat roosting,be separated into two separate mitigation measures:one for nesting birds and another for Resources,page 4-14 bat roosting based on the differences in survey methodology and timing. (See,Comment Letter p.2["While CDFW appreciates the inclusion of mitigation measure BIO-1 through 4-17 it is more appropriate to separate nesting bird and bat surveys into two measures based on the differences in survey methodology and timing"].) Additionally,the commenter requests that the mitigation measure related to nesting birds expand the timeframe of the pre-construction survey to include the entire year. Therefore,in response to and at the request of CDFW,original Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been separated into two mitigation measures:(1)revised Mitigation Measure BIO-1,which has been modified to exclusively address bat roosting through implementation of a pre-construction survey and roost avoidance and minimization measures during construction to reduce impacts to bat roosting to less than significant;and(2)Mitigation Measure BIO-3,which provides for a pre-construction survey and habitat avoidance and minimization measures to identify nesting birds within three days prior to the start of project activities including vegetation clearing and ground-disturbance. The survey shall be conducted between dawn and noon,in order to capture both nocturnal and diurnal nesting bird species and shall be conducted regardless of the time of year the construction is to begin. Commenter has not identified a"new,avoidable significant effect"requiring new mitigation to reduce environmental effects to less than significant;rather,previously proposed Mitigation Measure BIO-1,which was sufficient to reduce the previously-identified impacts to less than significant,has been divided and augmented to address the CDFW's request for added specificity. (14 CCR§15073.5(c)(2)-(3).) 6 Burrowing Owl 4-5 The comment first correctly notes that the Biological Resources Assessment for the Project(Appendix B,p.7)concludes that:"Burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC species Section 4.4,Biological that is associated with large expanses of(usually flat)grasslands and resides in small mammal burrows year around.Though the BSA is comprised of grassland and does Resources,page 4-14 include small mammal burrows(California ground squirrel),western burrowing owl is not expected to occur within the BSA for breeding or overwintering.The Project through 4-17 parcels are a relatively small(5.2 acres)undeveloped area surrounded by residential and commercial development.Anthropogenic disturbances(traffic,noise,mowing, and threats by domestic dogs)prevent the BSA from supporting burrowing owl.No burrowing owl sign(whitewash,owl pellets,or feathers)was observed during the field survey." (Comment Letter,p.4.) The CDFW comment letter does not provide evidence of a new significant impact on burrowing owl.The commenter"disagrees with the conclusion that the Project site could not support burrowing owls"based solely upon the following statement:"They are commonly found in disturbed areas surrounded by anthropogenic development" (id.)but offers no evidence beyond this statement to support that this is the case,generally or as to this Project site. As set forth in the Biological Resources Assessment,the qualified biologist for the project maintains that there is a low potential for the burrowing owl to occur because the project site is comprised of low quality habitat. Furthermore,no records of past or present burrowing owl occupation was found while reviewing the California Natural Diversity Database maintained by CDFW,which indicates that burrowing owls are not known to occur in the area of the Project site. Burrowing owls reside in sheltered areas,most commonly small mammal burrows(e.g.,California ground squirrel[Otospermophilus beecheyi]),year around for nesting and refuge.Though a few California ground squirrel burrows were observed at the Project site during the field survey,none of the burrows had burrowing owl signs(white-wash,pellets,or feathers)or any evidence that the Project site was presently or recently occupied by burrowing owls. No evidence is offered by CDFW to refute this determination. The simple statement that burrowing owls can be found in disturbed areas is thus based upon speculation and requires no further analysis or mitigation under CEQA. (See,CEQA Guidelines Section 15145["if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation,the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact"];see also,Marin Mun.Water Dist.v.KG Land California Corp.(1991)235 Cal.App.3d 1652,1662[environmental document need not engage in'sheer speculation'as to future environmental consequences"];Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.v. Regents of University of California(1993)6 Cal.4th 1112,1137[California Supreme Court held such a conclusion was authorized by CEQA Guidelines section 15145].) As such,there is no evidence in the record that the burrowing owl is supported on the Project site and the commenter has not identified a"new,avoidable significant effect"requiring new mitigation to reduce environmental effects to less than significant. (14 CCR§15073.5(b).) CC] CD Even though there is no evidence of a new significant impact on burrowing owl,the project mitigation measures have been revised to include voluntary implementation of s the more specific surveys as precautionary measures requested by the commenter. Based upon the assertion cited above,the commenter requests that a mitigation measure be included to provide for a pre-construction survey from a burrowing owl biologist.This added mitigation is requested even though the existing environmental C)1 Page 3 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Subtopic Page(s) Response IS/MND Reference # _ document already provides for a pre-construction survey that would identify and address MBTA-protected nesting birds and roosting bats,including the burrowing owl,as previously numbered BIO-1. As the burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC species,and as a protocol-level survey was not conducted for burrowing owls,the possibility of this species within the BSA cannot be entirely ruled out.However,similar to the western yellow bat,there is a low potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl at the Project site due to the low quality of habitat and anthropogenic disturbances(e.g.,traffic,noise,mowing,and threats by domestic dogs).Accordingly,although at this time it is unknown whether impacts to the burrowing owl species could occur and there is no evidence that their habitat could be supported by the Project site,applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate the "avoidance and minimization measures"suggested by the commenter's letter into the IS/MND. The requested additional surveys will be implemented as a precautionary measure to ensure that no burrowing owls have emerged at the time of construction and that,if identified,they are appropriately addressed. The IS/MND has been revised to include a discussion of this species as a species with the low potential to have marginal habitat supported by the BSA.Additionally,even though the potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl is low,Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a revision to the survey requirements previously set forth at BIO-1,mirroring the text of the suggested measure in commenter's letter)has been incorporated.This measure includes pre-construction surveys specific to the burrowing owl and burrowing owl habitat avoidance buffers to address burrowing owls at the request of CDFW and as a precautionary measure to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to burrowing owls and their associated habitat. (14 CCR§15073.5(c)(2).) However,no new significant biological impacts would result from the Project or from the precautionary measure(BIO-2)proposed to be implemented. (14 CCR§15073.5(c)(3).) With implementation of the surveys proposed by original BIO-1 or revised BIO-2,the potential Project impacts on the burrowing owl would be less than significant(as originally determined). 7 Environmental Data 5 The commenter requires any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database N/A (CNDDB).No further response to this comment is required. 8 Filing Fees 5 The commenter outlines the California Department of Fish and Wildlife fee requirements for environmental documentation.Upon filing the Notice of Determination for the N/A project,the City will pay the appropriate California Department of Fish and Wildlife fees,as required. 9 Conclusion 5 The commenter provides closing remarks and requests that the City address CDFW's recommendations prior to adoption of the IS/MND to avoid,minimize,or mitigate N/A Project impacts on biological resources.The IS/MND has been revised to clarify the impact discussion and mitigation measures associated with biological resources,and to augment the mitigation measures with additional precautionary measures requested by CDFW's comment letter.Specifically,a mitigation measure has been included to address burrowing owls at the request of CDFW as a precautionary measure even though the potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl is low.Mitigation Measure BIO-2,which includes pre-construction surveys and burrowing owl habitat avoidance buffers,would ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to burrowing owls and their associated habitat.However,no new significant environmental impacts would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. For the reasons described above in the more detailed response to Comment 6,there is no evidence of a new significant impact on burrowing owl,the project mitigation measures have been revised to include voluntary implementation more specific surveys at the request of the CDFW and as precautionary measures. Although these changes do not constitute"substantial revisions"that require recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5,the updated IS/MND will be recirculated to provide clarification regarding the project description and assumptions made in the Project's air quality analysis,augment mitigation measures to be implemented in connection with the Project,provide public notice of certain project revisions and regulatory updates,and to show other minor grammatical,technical and other revisions made to the document. 10 References 6 The commenter includes references to their comment letter.No further response to this comment is required. N/A 11 Attachment 1 7-9 The commenter attaches a draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for CDFW-proposed mitigation measures.This information has been incorporated into the N/A Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 0) CO CD 01 (a) Page 4 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Mitchell M.Tsai Carpenters Union Comment Letter Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference 1 Untitled(Introduction) 1-2 This comment includes introductory remarks and states the commenter's rights to provide comment. The comment incorporates by reference"all N/A comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project";however,there is no EIR for this Project. The commenter further requests to be notified of any notices issued under CEQA for this Project,citing sections of the CEQA Guidelines which relate to EIRs and are in applicable here.Per Section 21092.1 of the CEQA Guidelines,a public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092 prior to certification when"significant new information"is added to an EIR. For the reasons set forth in the Notice of Intent,the updated IS/MND will be recirculated to the public and notice to this and the other commenters as required under CEQA will be provided by the City. 2 The City should require local hire 2-5 The commenter requests that the City"require the Applicant to provide additional community benefits such as requiring local hire"to mitigate N/A greenhouse gas,air quality,and transportation impacts.The City does not have a written policy to require this.Further,the Project's entitlements will not include a Development Agreement;therefore,a discussion regarding"community benefits"is not relevant. Finally,all project impacts regarding greenhouse gas,air quality and transportation have been appropriate identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance as set forth in the IS/MND document. No additional mitigation is required to reduce such impacts to insignificance. This comment is noted for the record and no further response to this comment is required. 3 I.The Project Would be Approved in Violation of 5-6 The commenter believes there is a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the City should prepare N/A CEQA an EIR.Since the commenter does not state a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact analysis in the Draft IS/MND,no further response to this comment is required pursuant to CEQA. A.The City Must Prepare an EIR for the Project 4 B.Due to the COVID-19 Crisis,the City Must Adopt a 7-10 The commenter requests the City to adopt a mandatory finding of significance that that the Project may cause a significant adverse effect on Section 1.5.2,Project Mandatory Finding of Significance that the Project May human beings due to risk of COVID-19 spread during project construction.The commenter is directed to Section 1.5.2,Project Construction,of Construction,page 1-16 Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on Human Beings the IS/MND which clarifies that the"Project would comply with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC)guidelines,the Occupational and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts Safety and Health Administration(OSHA)requirements,and contractor policies to maintain a healthy workplace environment for construction workers at the job site." The CDC and OSHA guidelines do not require the additional COVID-19 measures recommended by SWRCC;however, as noted in the IS/MND,the project will comply with all federal,state,and local COVID-19 prevention measures. Accordingly,there is no legal support in CEQA or factual support in the record for commenter's assertion that the City must adopt a mandatory finding of significance due to the risk of COVID-19 spread during project construction. 5 II.The IS/MND is Deficient 10-11 The commenter states that the Parking Memo(Appendix I)fails to appropriately calculate the parking required for the project and requests that Appendix I the calculation be revised to include both residential and commercial uses. This comment is made under the section of the letter which alleges A.All Parking Calculations and Requested Parking that the IS/MND is deficient. Exceptions Numbers are Inaccurate,and Deceiving First,as a prefatory matter it is noted that parking was removed from the CEQA guidelines and the adequacy of parking is no longer an impact criteria under CEQA.As such,whether the project provides sufficient parking is not a consideration regarding the adequacy of the Project's CEQA document. Therefore,this comment is not relevant to the adequacy of the IS/MND or compliance with CEQA. Second,at the direction of the City the Project design has been revised to provide for additional parking such that the Project will no longer require a parking reduction(for the residential or commercial areas)and will comply with all City parking requirements and standards. As reflected in the revisions to the Section 1.5.1(Building and Site Design)—the Project will now provide a total of"528 total parking spaces:200 surface parking spaces and 328 garage parking spaces,including guest parking spaces. The surface parking spaces would include 173 standard parking spaces and 27 tandem spaces,as depicted in Figure 5 of the IS/MND.The subterranean garage would include 228 standard spaces and 100 tandem spaces and would be approximately 11 feet below ground. Figure 10 shows the subterranean garage site plan." Finally,the commenter's description of the City's Code is mis-leading and incorrect.Parking for shared use projects(this is a shared use project as the small commercial space will have the potential to utilize the same parking facilities as guest spaces)always consider the totality of the parking supply to ensure that the total supply is sufficient.An example of this is shared parking between office space and residential uses. CD According to the Urban Land Institute's Shared Parking Model,which is the industry standard for calculating parking for mixed-use developments, residential parking supply usually peaks in the late evening(around 10:00 PM).Conversely,office space peaks around 10:00 AM.Therefore, shared parking between uses does not consider them individually,but considers the total supply and the temporal demand of parking for those uses to ensure that the parking is"right sized". Page 5 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section!Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference This is further supported by the plain text of City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.34.090(cited in the comment letter),which states that"[i]n the case of mixed uses in a building or on a lot,the total number of required parking spaces shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately."Table 2 of the parking management memo,summarized below,specifically outlines how the parking allocation by use type is proposed: Table 2: Required Parking Required Total Requested Total Parking Units Parking Parking Parking Proposed per Unit Required Exception A(1 Bedroom) 164 1.5 276 B(2 Bedroom) 55 2 110 414 C(3 Bedroom) 20 2 40 13(3%) Live/Work(1 Bedroom) 1 1.5 1 Commercial 3,339 sq. 1 space per 13 4 9(69%) ft. 250 sq.ft. Guests 260 0.33 86 47 39(45%) Total 260 - 526 465 61(12%) Source:City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Table 17.64.050-1 for multi-family development. Note:The parking code requires mom than half of the parking for multifamily development to be garaged;the proposed project does not provide dedicated garages for reach unit. Additionally,Policy LC-2.7 of the Land Use and Community Character Element of the City's General Plan Update states:"Encourage structured and shared parking solutions that ensure that parking lots do not dominate street frontages and are screened from public views whenever possible."There is additional discussion related to this policy in the General Plan EIR that states:"As for parking requirements for individual developments,the City has adopted parking and loading standards by land use,as well as options for shared parking among two or more uses to reduce overall parking supply requirements.Reducing overall parking supplies helps to minimize impervious areas in surface parking lots,and results in more efficient use of land so that portions of parking lots or structures do not sit empty for long periods." (PlanRC 2040 EIR,p.5.17- 16.)This policy and policy discussion further supports evaluation of shared parking by calculating and evaluating the parking supply,and parking reductions,in totality as referenced in the document. Finally,it should be noted that the parking management memo has been updated to account for the additional parking that the Project will provide in accordance with City standards,and to include additional parking information collected at a similar site related to residential parking demand. The update also includes additional strategies to further monitor and,if needed,reallocate the designation of parking to better utilize the spaces on the site. 6 B.The IS/MND Project Description is Deficient 11 The commenter states that the parking reduction exception was incorrectly calculated.Refer to Response 5. Further,this comment is no longer Appendix I relevant as the Project will not seek a parking reduction. 7 C.The IS/MND Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures 11-12 The commenter states that the IS/MND violates CEQA because"project design features"are used in lieu of mitigation measures. The comment Section 1.5.1.4,Sustainable as"Project Design Features" does not reference a specific PDF or provide analysis of why that PDF should be characterized as project mitigation. The comment includes text Design Features,page 1-15; about"sustainable design features"found on IS/MND page 4-29,but cites to 4-29. Section 4.6,Energy,pages 4- -029 through 4-30;Section 4.8, CU Assuming the commenter intended to refer to the general text on page 4-29 regarding"sustainable design features,"the commenter is directed to Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CD Section 1.5.1.4,Sustainable Design Features,of the IS/MND which identifies the energy efficiency elements that would be included as part of the page 4-36 Project design.These Sustainable Design Features are referenced where applicable within the Energy analysis.Additionally,although the 41, Project's compliance with 2019 Title 24 energy efficiency standards for residential buildings is included within the Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis,the section has been updated to specifically reference Section 1.5.1.4 to confirm that compliance is a result of the implementation of the Page 6 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section!Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference Project's Sustainable Design Features. These components are integral to the proposed building composition and Project design and would not be considered mitigation and should not be included as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These sustainable design features are accounted for in the proposed design for the Project,not implemented after the fact in order to reduce or mitigate an identified environmental impact. They are analyzed as such in the impact analysis of the IS/MND—i.e.,the impact conclusions take into account environmental protection afforded by these design features. As such,they are appropriately identified in the IS/MND as PDFs and are not project mitigation. 8 D.The IS/MND Fails to Adopt all Mitigation Measures 12-14 The commenter states that the IS/MND includes the hiring of a paleontologist as a mitigation measure but fails to include this within the Mitigation Section 4.7,Geology and Identified on the IS/MND Summary;the commenter further states that mitigation measures must be adopted following a finding of significance.The commenter is directed Soils,page 4-34 to Section 4.7,Geology and Soils,on page 4-34 of the IS/MND which clarifies that impacts to paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features would be less than significant,thus negating the need for a mitigation measure.The analysis concludes that,while no paleontological resources have been encountered at or in the vicinity of the Project site,the proposed Project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.Although not expected to occur,in the event previously uncovered paleontological resources are encountered during Project construction,the construction manager would halt construction activities in the immediate area. A qualified paleontologist would make an immediate evaluation of the significance and appropriate treatment of the resource.Construction activities may continue on other parts of the construction site while evaluation and treatment of paleontological resources take place,if necessary.Compliance with these existing policies would ensure that the impact to paleontological resources would be less than significant."The assistance of a paleontologist in the event of a resource being uncovered is not proposed as a mitigation measure and therefore is not listed in the Mitigation Summary.However,this portion of the analysis does incorrectly reference the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f), which specifically applies to archeological resources;as such,this reference has been removed and the IS/MND revised.This comment is noted for the record and no further response to this comment is required. 9 Conclusion 14 The commenter provides closing remarks and requests that the City revise and recirculate the IS/MND.The IS/MND has been revised to clarify N/A the project description,impact discussions and mitigation measures.However,no new significant environmental impacts would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. Although recirculation is not required under the CEQA Guidelines as to these revisions,the IS/MND will be recirculated for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Intent issued by the City. Refer to Response 1 and law cited therein. 10 Exhibit C 15-20 The commenter includes a local hire greenhouse gas(GHG)modeling analysis comparison as an attachment to their comment letter.The N/A findings of the SWAPE report do not change the impact conclusions of the Draft IS/MND. Please note that the GHG emissions that would be generated by construction and operation of the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model(CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2),which is the preferred regulatory tool recommended by SCAQMD for estimating GHG emissions from proposed land use development projects..Default values within CalEEMod were modified with project-specific information,as applicable.Remarks were left in the emissions modeling files describing the source of the information that deviated from model default values. The GHG emissions analysis prepared by the commenter's analyst does not accurately reflect the proposed project for numerous reasons, including:the SWAPE construction schedule is not consistent with the schedule determined by the Applicant,resulting in inaccurate estimations of GHG emissions during construction activities;the SWAPE modeling relied on CalEEMod default equipment inventories for construction, including the use of Rubber Tired Dozers,which would not be used to construct the proposed project;the SWAPE modeling assumed an operational vehicle fleet mix that included 6.5 percent heavy-heavy duty trucks resulting in overestimated mobile source GHG emissions,while the proposed project is predominantly a residential development that would not generate heavy-heavy duty truck trips;SWAPE modeling for proposed project uses relied on the default CalEEMod 2016.3.2 Title 24 electricity and natural gas consumption rates,which are based on 2013 Title 24 standards,whereas the proposed project would be required to meet 2019 Title 24 end use standards that are more stringent and would result in lower magnitudes of GHG emissions than as modeled by SWAPE.For the reasons stated above,the SWAPE GHG emissions modeling is overly conservative in nature and does not reflect elements of the proposed project that would reduce emissions relative to the default values accounted for in CalEEMod 2016.3.2. _ 11 Exhibit B _ 21-31 The commenter includes a resume as an attachment to their comment letter.No further response to this comment is required. _ N/A 12 Exhibit C 33-41 The commenter includes a resume as an attachment to their comment letter.No further response to this comment is required. N/A 0) CD 01 C7 Page 7 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Lozeau Drury SAFER Comment Letter Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference 1 Untitled(Introduction) 1 This comment includes introductory remarks,states"there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts,"and requests an N/A Environmental Impact Report(EIR)be prepared for the Project.Per Section 15073.5(d)of the CEQA Guidlines,"if during the negative declaration process there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record,before the lead agency that the project,as revised,may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided,the lead agency shall prepare a draft EIR and certify a final EIR prior to approving the project."The IS/MND identifies and evaluates all adverse environmental impacts the Project may cause and proposes feasible measures to mitigate all potentially significant impacts identified to less than significant.This commenter does not identify any new adverse environmental impacts that the IS/MND has not identified and evaluated.The IS/MND has been revised to clarify its analysis but does not include any new significant environmental impacts because none could be surmised.Therefore,an EIR is not needed for this Project. 2 I.Project Description 2 This comment describes the project description and does not state a specific concern or question regarding any physical impact to the environment or the adequacy of N/A the environmental impact analysis in the Draft IS/MND.Therefore,no further response to this comment is required under CEQA. 3 II.Legal Standard 2-5 The commenter discusses reported court decisions and other legal authorities regarding CEQA but does not express any question or concern regarding any physical N/A impact to the environment or the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND.Therefore,no further response to this comment is required under CEQA. Additionally,see Response to Comment 1 for further detail regarding why,pursuant to this legal standard,an EIR is not needed for this Project. 4 III.Discussion 5-8 The commenter assumes—without presenting any facts to confirm—that the Project's building materials would include composite wood products manufactured with Section 4.3(d),Air Quality,page 4-12 urea-formaldehyde resins that would cause a significant impact on indoor air quality by emissions that would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's A.There is Substantial Evidence of (SCAQMD)CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk.The commenter states the SCAQMD threshold rate is 10 per million while the Project would emit a a Fair Argument that the Project rate of 120 per million based on results of an indoor air quality study(Singer,et al,2020).The proposed Project would develop a 260-unit apartment community.The Will Have a Significant Health Risk commenter is directed to Section 4.3(d)(Air Quality),page 4-12 of the IS/MND. Impact from its Indoor Air Quality The proposed Project is a new construction.The City requires,and the developer is legally obligated to ensure,that all new construction complies with all applicable Impacts building code and other legal requirements.Therefore,the developer will ensure that all building materials utilized will comply with all California requirements applicable to formaldehyde in newly constructed buildings including the applicable 2019 California Green Building Standards(CALGreen)Code(California Code of Regulations, Title 24,Part 11)for formaldehyde in composite wood products(as specified in the California Air Resources Board Air Toxic Control Measure for Composite Wood—17 CCR 93120 et seq.).The commenter is directed to Section 4.3(d),page 4-12 of the IS/MND which clarifies that"all materials utilized in building construction would comply with the applicable Green Code standards for formaldehyde including the California Green Building Code,24 CCR 4.504.4.5,which requires composite wood products to comply with the CARB Airborne Toxic Air Control Measure to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products and California's Proposition 65 which requires businesses to provide warnings for exposures to formaldehyde(and other listed carcinogens and reproductive toxins)unless the business can prove that the exposure poses no significant risk."The developer will have full control over the selection of materials used for building construction and will ensure that all composite wood products would be GARB Phase II-compliant in accordance with the 2019 CALGreen standards. The study that the commenter relied upon to purport that indoor carcinogenic risks to future residents would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 excess cancers per million(Singer,et al.,2020)does not provide substantial evidence to support the claim for several reasons.First,the Healthy Efficient New Gas Home(HENGH)study was performed with the intent of evaluating the effects of the 2008 Title 24 Building Standards requirements for ventilation on indoor air quality within single family homes containing natural gas appliances and outfitted with mechanical ventilation systems.The purpose of the study was not to analyze formaldehyde emission rates or resulting concentrations from composite wood products.The single family homes evaluated in the HENGH study were built between 2011-2017 and only required to meet 2008 Title 24 building standards for mechanical ventilation and building envelope leakage/air infiltration.The Title 24 standards and methodology for residential ventilation requirements were updated in 2016 and refined in 2019,and therefore homes included in the HENGH sample that would not have met the 2019 ventilation standards are not reliable for comparative purposes.Homes evaluated in the original 2007 California New Home Study(CNHS)—which the HENGH study used as a benchmark for pre-2008 ventilation conditions—are also not comparable to the proposed apartment units that comprise the Project with regards to ventilation and infiltration standards,which greatly influence indoor air quality. Furthermore,the HENGH sample of detached,single-family homes is not comparable to the apartment units comprising the proposed project based on the average size of the dwelling units and the sources of emissions present.The sample of single family homes in the HENGH study had a mean floor area of 2,657 square feet and generally ranged from 2,000 to 3,500 square feet.The proposed project comprises multifamily apartment units ranging in size from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet and the average(mean)floor area of apartments comprising the proposed project is approximately 872 square feet.Therefore,the average single family home included Nin the HENGH sample was approximately three times as large as the average apartment for the proposed Project.The HENGH study did not document the approximate square footage of composite wood flooring/panels in each single family home sampled,however,it is reasonable to assume that a proportional amount of composite wood products would be used based on the floor area.Average daily formaldehyde emissions from composite wood flooring products within each dwelling unit would therefore be approximately three times lower in proposed project apartment units on average than in the single family homes analyzed in the HENGH study. Page 8 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference Lastly,composite wood products do not represent the only source of volatile organic compound(VOC)emissions within the single family homes evaluated in the HENGH study,and the study did not include a sample/control analysis.The HENGH study specifically assessed homes with natural gas appliances,which emit VOCs and are also regulated under Title 24.The 2019 Title 24 residential building standards for appliance end use natural gas consumption are more stringent than the 2008 standards,and jt has been determined that compliance with these new more stringent standards(which,as noted above,the Project will adhere to in their entirety) would adequately prevent an impact arising from indoor air emissions and concentrations of formaldehyde.Notably,the HENGH study did not include an analysis that isolated composite wood product emissions sources as the control variable,and the results of the study cannot be entirely associated with the presence of composite wood products.While the HENGH study determined that median indoor formaldehyde concentrations were approximately one-third lower and maximum concentrations were approximately 50 percent lower compared to the original 2007 CNHS,the degree of decrease cannot be directly attributed to composite wood products meeting the CARB Phase II compliance.For these reasons the comment fails to provide substantial evidence supporting an indoor carcinogenic risk exceeding the SCAQMD toxicity threshold within proposed project apartment units. The commenter also suggests that the proposed project should incorporate indoor air mitigation using advanced filtration units to reduce potential resident exposures to fine particulate matter(PM2.$)concentrations in outdoor air resulting from nearby roadways that infiltrates into the building.The commenter identifies the Interstate 15(I- 15)freeway,Foothill Blvd,Etiwanda Ave,and Auto Club Speedway as sources of PM25 emissions and suggests that concentrations would exceed the ambient air quality standards,thereby impacting future residents.An analysis of the existing environment on future residents of the proposed project is not necessary per the unanimous California Supreme Court's decision cited by the commenter)in California Building Industry Association v.Bay Area Air Quality Management District(2015) 62 Cal.4th 369,377:"In light of CEQA's text,statutory structure,and purpose,we conclude that agencies generally subject to CEQA are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents."On pages 4-10 and 4-12 in Section4.3,Air Quality,the IS/MND analysis does analyze how the Project exacerbates air emissions from mobile sources(including along the roadways referenced by the commenter)and shows that ambient AQ standards for PM 2.5 would not be exceeded,contrary to what the commenter asserts. As demonstrated by the analysis presented in the Air Quality section of the IS/MND,implementation of the proposed Project would not generate daily PM2.5 emissions in excess of the applicable regional or localized significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD.Therefore,the proposed Project would not risk"exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist"and no further analysis of PM2.5 concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed. Implementation of BMPs which are standard conditions of approval would reduce impacts to air quality to the extent feasible because construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors would be minimized through the use of the highest rate diesel engines available for heavy-duty,off-road equipment and dust suppression techniques. Furthermore,the CARB has published recommended buffer distances for sting sensitive land uses setback from sources of major pollutant emissions,including high- volume roadways.The CARB recommends avoiding sitting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway or urban road with 100,000 vehicles per day(CARB, 2005).In compliance with this guidance from CARB,the proposed Project would be located approximately 1,800 feet(approximately one-third of a mile)from the 1-15 corridor.As such,the proposed project would be situated more than three times the recommended buffer distance established by the CARB and would be farther away than the distance at which freeway-source emissions are distinguishable in traffic-related health studies(1,000 feet).Additionally,the PlanRC City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update contains a section dedicated to Community Mobility with an associated Existing Conditions Report(City of Rancho Cucamonga,May 2020).The Community Mobility Existing Conditions Report identifies that Foothill Blvd has an average daily traffic of approximately 30,000-40,000 vehicles per day, and Etiwanda Avenue has an average daily traffic of approximately 10,000-15,000 vehicles per day.Both of these roadway corridors have average daily traffic that is substantially below the CARB major urban roadway criterion of 100,000 vehicles per day.Therefore,the comment has not provided substantial evidence to support the claim that 1-15,Foothill Boulevard,and Etiwanda Avenue would constitute sources of air quality concerns for future residents of the proposed Project.Finally,the Auto Club Speedway would be located approximately 6,500 feet(1.23 miles)from the proposed Project.CARB recommends siting new sensitive land uses at least 1,000 feet from distribution centers and maintenance and service yards for railroads.The proposed Project would be significantly beyond this distance(more than six times the distance recommended by CARB)from the Auto Club Speedway. 5 B.The IS/MND Fails to Adequately 8 The commenter provides an introduction on the wildlife biologist commenting on the biological resources analysis of the IS/MND but does not express any question or N/A Mitigate the Potential Adverse concern regarding any physical impact to the environment or the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND.Therefore,no further response to this comment is required under Impacts of the Project on Wildlife CEQA. However,the comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. 0) OD CD 01 co Page 9 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference 6 i.The wildlife baseline relied upon 8-12 The commenter states the reconnaissance field survey conducted by AECOM,from which the baseline for the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum was Section 4.4,Biological Resources,pages by the IS/MND is woefully established,was inadequate.Specifically,the commenter suggests that the time of day when the field survey was conducted was not appropriate.The purpose of the 4-13 through 4-15;Appendix B inadequate. reconnaissance field survey that was conducted on September 24,2020 was to identify the presence of habitats and to determine the potential for special-status species to occur in the biological survey area(BSA).Habitats can be identified at any time of day and the surveyor noted,on page 6 of Appendix B(Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum)of the IS/MND,that"no survey constraints impeded the ability of the biologist to perform the survey successfully".If high-quality habitat for a special-status species was found,or incidental observation of a special-status species was noted,during the reconnaissance field survey,follow-up presence-absence surveys would have been recommended specific to the individual species with high potential to occur.However,as discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources,pages 4-13 through 4-15 of the IS/MND,such findings and observations of a high quality habitat for a special-status species or of such a species did not occur.Additionally,the biologist who conducted the reconnaissance survey has over 12 years of experience with both wildlife and plant surveys in California and is qualified to make the determinations discussed in the IS/MND and the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum.See this biologist's biography,under Appendix E of Appendix B,attached to the IS/MND.As such,the reconnaissance field survey and wildlife baseline used to determine the Project's impact on biological resources is adequate and appropriate. The commenter states that"marginal habitat"was present in the BSA for two special-status species identified in the database review.However,importantly,this comment does not acknowledge that the presence of a marginal habitat for the two special-status species it references would indicate a marginal or very low probability that such a species exists in the BSA and would not,by itself,warrant a recommendation for follow up presence-absence surveys to determine the presence of either species.A finding of a marginal habitat for such species would in these circumstances make a finding of a potentially significant impact to such species unlikely and speculative,which CEQA does not require.See CEQA Guidelines Section 15145. This commenter also indicates the IS/MND"misuses"and"misrepresents"the CNDDB by stating that:(i)the CNDDB did"not map[]precisely"locations where four special-status species were observed,and(ii)"CNDDB records that overlap with the[BSA]are 19 years old or more and since that the time,the area has been developed substantially"making it"possible many locations no longer exist...current site conditions do not provide suitable habitat for these species and none are known to occur or expected to occur within the Project site or vicinity."This comment,however,acknowledges that the CNDDB is not"intended to indicate...the species'exact locations",and agrees that it would be"inappropriate...to assert locations of past occupancy[of special-status species]should still be locations of current occupancy".While suggesting that"occurrences within 5 miles"could indicate"the species could also occur at the project site",this comment does not dispute the findings that neither high quality habitat for such species nor such species was found in the BSA or the Project site and does not offer evidence that commenter's biologist made such findings. As an example,the CNDDB record for Los Angeles pocket mouse that overlaps the BSA(element code:AMAFD01041)is greater than 1 square mile in size,which is far larger than the BSA itself.The CNDDB lists the spatial accuracy of the record as a"non-specific area",which often means precise locations are not available. Sometimes,this is due to the age of the record and availability of spatial technology such as GPS or accurate mapping at the time.This CNDDB record is dated 1999 and CNDDB lists the location information as"LOCATED IN FONTANA,S OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY 66,W OF MULBERRY AVE,E OF ETIWANDA AVE,AND N OF THE STEEL PLANT",which is a general location and also does not align with the location of the BSA which is north of highway 66.Due to the non-specific nature of this particular record location,it is not known if the record references Los Angeles pocket mouse within the BSA or if the species was detected in other location(s)within the square mile.The CNDDB record describes the habitats onsite at the time of the finding as"HIGHLY DISTURBED ALLUVIAL FAN SAGE SCRUB,WITH PAST VINEYARD ACTIVITY AND RECENT SHEEP GRAZING".At the present day,the square mile area overlapping is predominantly commercial and residential space indicating that the area has undergone significant land use change since the time of the record origination. Regardless of whether the Los Angeles pocket mouse was ever recorded within the BSA,the species was considered for potential to occur and high quality habitat for this species(alluvial fan sage scrub)was not presently found onsite,therefore it is unlikely for this species to occur in the BSA. This comment describes as speculative and generalizes the explanations offered by the IS/MND for the absence of high quality habitat for special-status species habitat or of special-status species in the BSA.While this commenter refers to the commenter's biologist's view that"no evidence"is offered or no"case"is made for these explanations,the explanations reflect the IS/MND's biologist's opinion,based on experience with and knowledge of these species and their habitats,of why none of the special-status species are likely to be encountered within the BSA.Importantly,this comment does not dispute any of these explanations as possible reasons why none were encountered.Additionally,the CDFW has reviewed the IS/MND for the project's impacts on biological resources and provided comments which have been incorporated into the IS/MND.Clarification and modifications were made to the biological mitigation measures to distinguish the pre-construction surveys and measures for nesting birds and roosting bats(see revised mitigation measures BI0-1 and BIO-3),and,as a precautionary measure,to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any impacts to burrowing owls(see mitigation measure BIO-2). The CDFW is the state agency tasks with protecting wildlife at the state level and they have not indicated that reconnaissance survey was inadequate in their view. The commenter also suggests(at page 11 of the comment letter)that the IS/MND and BSA"understate the range of animal species that are likely present on the tv Project site."The commenter is directed to Appendix B,the Biological Technical Memo,Sections 4.0(Methodology)and 5.1(Special-Status Species).The biological tp assessment comprises a desktop review of existing databases and identified biological resources that may occur in the BSA,including special-status plants and CD wildlife,USFWS's Critical Habitat,and previously delineated waters of the U.S.and state of California.Database searches were conducted of the Guasti 7.5-minute s United States Geological Survey(USGS)topographic quadrangle,along with the eight surrounding quadrangles which included:Mt.Baldy,Cucamonga Peak, G37 Devore,Ontario,Fontana,Prado Dam,Corona North,and Riverside West.Aerial imagery of the BSA was reviewed to help characterize site conditions.This CD Page 10 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference information was evaluated by consulting the following available databases:CDFW CNDDB1;USFWS online Information for Planning and Consultation(IPaC)2;CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants3;USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper4;USFWS National Wetlands Inventory(NWI)°,and USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)°. Additional sources of information on special-status species in California were reviewed,given that CNDDB is not inclusive of all current known occurrence information. The probability of occurrence evaluation for special-status species identified during the database reviews was supplemented by AECOM's professional knowledge of the area and included reviews of other published sources of information regarding special-status species in California.These latter sources include the following: eBird website 7;!naturalist website°;Calflora website°;and Western Bat Working Group(WBWG)website10. The desktop review yielded records for 49 special-status plant species and 52 special-status wildlife species that have been documented within the Guasti and surrounding eight quadrangles(Appendix D of the Biological Technical Memo).The CNDDB search yielded four special-status species with occurrences that overlap the BSA,including coast horned lizard(Phrynosoma blainvillif),Delhi Sands flower-loving fly(Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis),Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus),and Parry's spineflower(Chorizanthe parryi var.party).Although the CNDDB occurrences overlap with the BSA,none were considered to have potential to occur in the BSA given present day site conditions.In general,the CNDDB records of these four species had non-specific locations which were not mapped precisely to the locations where the species were observed,and each individual observation is a square mile or greater in size;so it is not known whether the observation was actually made precisely within the BSA.The CNDDB records that overlap with the BSA are also 19 or more years old and there has been significant development in the area since that time and it is possible many locations have been extirpated.These four species were assessed for potential to occur within the BSA;however,the CNDDB occurrence information is not sufficient by itself to conclude that the species is present or has potential to occur in the present day.Due to the high levels of historic disturbance and absence of native habitats,the BSA does not provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant species;therefore,none are expected to occur within the BSA.As such,the biological assessment provides a thorough and comprehensive review of biological species occurring at and around the Project site in accordance with presently accepted industry procedures,databases and other sources of evidence. The commenter also states(at pages 11-12 of the comment letter)that Ms.Smallwood encountered 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during the site visit.The observed species that Ms.Smallwood listed in Table 1 of Exhibit B are common and widespread species that are not typically given special consideration under CEQA.Impacts to biological resources pertain to species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the CDFW or USFWS.Special-status species are defined as species that are included on one or more of the following lists:Plant and wildlife species that are listed as threatened or endangered,or are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered,under the Federal Endangered Species Act(ESA)or California Endangered Species Act(CESA)11;California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW)-designated Species of Special Concern(SSC),or designated Fully Protected Species72;and Plants designated by the California Native Plant Society(CNPS)and CDFW with a California Rare Plant Rank(CRPR).13 Therefore,the birds of prey and CDFW-designated watch list species(American kestrel and Cooper's hawk)observed by Ms.Smallwood are not candidate,sensitive,or special- status species to be considered under CEQA. The commenter also states(at page 12 of the comment letter)that California ground squirrels were observed across the street from the Project site which she believes indicates a potential habitat for many species including burrowing owls at the Project site.The commenter is directed to the Biological Resources Assessment,in which the qualified biologist acknowledges the presence of California ground squirrels and still maintains that that there is a low potential for the burrowing owl to occur because the Project site is comprised of low quality habitat. Though a few California ground squirrel burrows were observed at the Project site(not simply across the street)during the field survey,none of the burrows had burrowing owl signs(white-wash,pellets,or feathers)or any evidence that the Project site was presently or recently occupied by burrowing owls.The Biological Resources Assessment for the Project(Appendix B,p.7),concludes that:"Burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC species that is associated with large expanses of(usually flat)grasslands and resides in small mammal burrows year around.Though the BSA is comprised of grassland and does include small mammal burrows(California ground squirrel),western burrowing owl is not expected to occur within the BSA for breeding or overwintering.The Project parcels are a relatively small(5.2 acres)undeveloped area surrounded by residential and commercial development.Anthropogenic disturbances(traffic,noise, mowing,and threats by domestic dogs)prevent the BSA from supporting burrowing owl.No burrowing owl sign(whitewash,owl pellets,or feathers)was observed during the field survey." Furthermore,no records of past or present burrowing owl occupation was found while reviewing the California Natural Diversity Database CDFW CNDDB RareFind 5.0.Available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018407-rarefind-5.Accessed on September 11,2020. IPaC.2020.USFWS.Available at:https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.Accessed September 2020. 3 CNPS,Rare Plant Program.2020.Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California(online edition,v8-03 0.45).Available at http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.Accessed on September 11,2020. °USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper.2020.Available at:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html.Accessed on September 28,2020. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory.2020.Available at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html.Accessed on October 14,2020. USGS National Hydrography Products.2020.Available at:https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography/access-national-hydrography-products.Accessed on September 11,2020. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology:Ebird Website.2020.Available at http://www.ebird.org.Accessed on September 11,2020. [) a(naturalist Open Source Software.iNaturalist website.2020.Available at http://inaturalist.org.Accessed on September 11,2020. CO (D 9 Calflora website.2020.Available at http://calflora.org.Accessed on September 11,2020. 1°Western Bat Working Group website.2020.Available at http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/.Accessed on September 28,2020. 11 Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act(Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations[CFR]17.12[listed plants],Title 50 CFR 17.11[listed animals]and includes notices in the Federal Register for proposed species).Species listed or ifornia as Title 14 Cifornia Code proposed Cal fo nia Natural Diversity Databasle(CNDDB).r0 tober 2020.Speciaeatened or A nimals List Califon a Departmentt of F sh andunder the California.Endangered Species Act(Wildl fe.Sa f Regulations 670.5). c ame to,CA 1a Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act(California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). Page 11 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference maintained by CDFW,which indicates that burrowing owls are not known to occur in the area of the project site. Burrowing owls reside in sheltered areas,most commonly small mammal burrows(e.g.,California ground squirrel[Otospermophilus beecheyi]),year around for nesting and refuge. The commenter is also directed to Section 4.4(a)of the Draft IS/MND,which clarifies that there is a low potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl at the Project site due to the low quality of habitat and anthropogenic disturbances(e.g.,traffic,noise,mowing,and threats by domestic dogs).The Project site is a vacant lot surrounded by residential and commercial development and a major roadway and does not support high quality burrowing owl habitat.Therefore,the simple statement that the observation of California ground squirrels across the street indicates a potential habitat for burrowing owls at the Project site is based upon speculation and requires no further analysis or mitigation under CEQA. (See,CEQA Guidelines Section 15145["if a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation,the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact];see also,Marin Mun.Water Dist.v.KG Land California Corp.(1991)235 Cal.App.3d 1652,1662[environmental document need not engage in'sheer speculation'as to future environmental consequences"];Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.v.Regents of University of California(1993)6 Cal.4th 1112,1137[California Supreme Court held such a conclusion was authorized by CEQA Guidelines section 15145].) As such,there is no evidence in the record that the burrowing owl is supported on the Project site and the commenter has not identified a"new,avoidable significant effect"requiring new mitigation to reduce environmental effects to less than significant. (14 CCR§15073.5(b).) Further,even though there is no evidence of a new significant impact on burrowing owl,the project mitigation measures have been revised to include voluntary implementation of more specific surveys at the request of the CDFW. As the burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC species,and as a protocol-level survey was not conducted for burrowing owls,the possibility of this species within the BSA cannot be entirely ruled out.However,similar to the western yellow bat,there is a low potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl at the Project site due to the low quality of habitat and anthropogenic disturbances(e.g.,traffic,noise,mowing,and threats by domestic dogs).Accordingly,although at this time it is unknown whether impacts to the burrowing owl species could occur and there is no evidence that their habitat could be supported by the Project site,applicant has voluntarily agreed to incorporate the"avoidance and minimization measures"suggested by the CDFW's letter into the IS/MND. The requested additional surveys will be implemented as a precautionary measure to ensure that no burrowing owls have emerged at the time of construction and that,if identified,they are appropriately addressed. Specifically,the IS/MND has been revised to include a discussion of this species as a species with the low potential to have marginal habitat supported by the BSA. Additionally,even though the potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl is low,Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a revision to the survey requirements previously set forth at BIO-1,mirroring the text of suggested measure in CDFW's comment letter)has been incorporated.This measure includes pre-construction surveys specific to the burrowing owl and burrowing owl habitat avoidance buffers to address burrowing owls at the request of CDFW and as a precautionary measure to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to burrowing owls and their associated habitat. (14 CCR§15073.5(c)(2).) However,no new significant biological impacts would result from the Project or from the precautionary measure(BIO-2)proposed to be implemented. (14 CCR§15073.5(c)(3).) With implementation of the surveys proposed by original BIO-1 or revised BIO-2,the potential project impacts on the burrowing owl would be less than significant(as originally determined). 7 ii.The IS/MND fails to address the 12-13 The commenter states that the Project would cause a significant impact to birds by removing 35 annual nests of unspecified ground nesting bird species.The Section 4.4,pages 4-13 and 4-18 Project's potential significant impact commenter is directed to Section 4.4,page 4-13 and 4-18 of the Draft IS/MND.The BSA under existing conditions is characterized by a mostly flat area dominated by on loss of breeding capacity non-native invasive vegetation and bare ground bordered with ornamental trees and shrubs.As described in Appendix B,the Biological Technical Memorandum, Section 4.0(Methodology),a site reconnaissance survey was conducted at the Project site and BSA on September 24,2020.The Project parcels were carefully surveyed on foot,and all wildlife and plants observed were recorded(Appendix B of the Biological Technical Memorandum).Photographs were collected of the Project parcel(Appendix C of the Biological Technical Memorandum).The adjacent properties located within the 500-foot buffer of the BSA were surveyed with binoculars from public sidewalks,to the extent feasible,to determine the potential for biological resources.Survey conditions were suitable for determining the potential for biological resources,and no survey constraints impeded the ability of the biologist to perform the survey successfully.No ground nests, ground nesting bird species or special- status plant or wildlife species were observed within BSA during the reconnaissance field survey.Common plant and wildlife species observed during the reconnaissance field survey are included in Appendix B of the Biological Technical Memo.The commenter cites two studies that commenter states showed various bird nesting densities,but it is apparent that neither study occurred in the BSA or on the Project Site,and apparently occurred somewhere in"North America". These study references do not indicate what ground nesting bird species had nests in the two study areas,whether those species are also known to exist or nest within the Project Site or BSA,and the similarities,if any,of topographical,vegetative and climatic conditions that would suggest either study had any relevance or usefulness to suggest that the same ground nesting bird species the two studies involved would be found or had nests in the BSA or on the Project Site. As a consequence,this comment relies on speculation and provides no substantial evidence in proposing that nests of protected ground nesting bird species exist on the Project Site or in the BSA, especially when existing Project conditions show otherwise. Since CEQA does not permit a finding to rest on speculation,this comment raises no evidence of a significant impact. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15145. Furthermore,pre-construction surveys and nest avoidance buffers would be implemented as Mitigation Measure BIO-3 to protect birds and their nests and eggs under fQ the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code 3503.Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be implemented to protect roosting bats.Additionally,upon CD Project completion,new landscaping(trees and shrubs)that will surround the proposed mixed-use buildings will allow for continued breeding of a similar suite of urban- -, adapted nesting birds that currently nest in the BSA.As such,the proposed Project would not result in habitat loss that would impact bird breeding and bat roosting capacity. Page 12 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference 8 iii.The IS/MND fails to address the 13-14 The commenter states that implementation of the proposed Project would result in potential cumulative impacts on habitat fragmentation.The commenter is directed to Section 4.4,pages 4-18 and 4-19 Project's potential cumulative Section 4.4(d),pages 4-18 and 4-19 of the Draft IS/MND which states that in an urban context,a wildlife migration corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature impacts on habitat fragmentation of sufficient width and buffer to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments,or between a habitat fragment and some vital resource that encourages population growth and diversity.Habitat fragments are isolated patches of habitat separated by otherwise foreign or inhospitable areas,such as urban tracts or highways.Two types of wildlife migration corridors seen in urban settings are regional corridors,defined as those linking two or more large areas of natural open space,and local corridors,defined as those allowing resident wildlife to access critical resources(food,cover,and water)in a smaller area that might otherwise be isolated by urban development. The BSA occurs within an industrial center of the Los Angeles Basin and does not occur within or intersect a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site.As a consequence,since the BSA is not within a wildlife corridor or nursery site,habitat fragmentation would not occur.However,the BSA is located within the Pacific Flyway which is an important migration pathway for many migrating bird species.The Pacific Flyway is one of four major North American migration routes for birds,especially waterfowl,that extends from Alaska and Canada through California to Mexico.As these birds travel the flyway on their annual north-south migration, they stopover at wetlands with suitable habitat and food supplies.The Project site is composed of non-native annual grassland and bare ground and bordered with ornamental trees and shrubs and does not contain suitable habitat or food supplies for birds migrating and therefore,is not used as part of this corridor. Project construction activities(i.e.,increased noise,human presence,vibration)may temporarily result in wildlife avoidance of the Project site during the construction timeframe.However,the Project site is located within an urbanized area surrounded by residential and commercial development and a major roadway.The study area also does not occur within or intersect a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site.Although ornamental trees and shrubs along the border of the Project parcels provide some opportunities for cover,foraging,and nesting to localized bird populations,anthropogenic disturbances such as traffic,noise, mowing,and threats by domestic dogs result in a low potential for suitable habitat.However,the project would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3,as discussed in Section 4.4(a)of the Draft IS/MND and described in the above responses to comments from CDFW,to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to nesting birds,roosting bats,and burrowing owls. 9 iv.The IS/MND fails to address the 14-15 The commenter states that the IS/MND fails to discuss the proposed Project's impact on wildlife movement,and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor.The Section 4.4,pages 4-18 and 4-19 Project's potential significant commenter is directed to Section 4.4(d)of the Draft IS/MND which addresses whether the proposed Project would interfere substantially with the movement of any impacts on wildlife movement native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.As set forth in this section of the Draft IS/MND,the Project site and BSA are not located within or nor do they intersect with a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site.Although ornamental trees and shrubs along the border of the Project site provide some opportunities for cover,foraging,and nesting, the Project site is located within an urbanized area surrounded by residential and commercial development and a major roadway and does not contain suitable habitat or food supplies for migrating birds or wildlife.Due to the unsuitable habitat for wildlife in the Project area,the Project will not impact wildlife movement;any wildlife movement that may occur in the Project area under existing conditions would continue to move through the surrounding urban area with or without the Project regardless of a wildlife corridor. Project construction activities(i.e.,increased noise,human presence,vibration)may temporarily result in wildlife avoidance of the Project site during the construction timeframe.However,the project would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3,as discussed in Section 4.4(a)of the Draft IS/MND,to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to nesting birds,roosting bats,and burrowing owls. As discussed in Section 4.4(d),the BSA is located within the Pacific Flyway which is an important migration pathway for many migrating bird species.The Pacific Flyway is one of four major North American migration routes for birds,especially waterfowl,that extends from Alaska and Canada through California to Mexico.As these birds travel the flyway on their annual north-south migration,they stopover at wetlands with suitable habitat and food supplies.The Project site is composed of non-native annual grassland and bare ground and bordered with ornamental trees and shrubs.The Project site is surrounded by residential and commercial development and a major roadway to the north and does not contain suitable habitat or food supplies for birds migrating.Therefore,the Project site is not considered part of this corridor. 10 v.The IS/MND fails to address the 15-17 The commenter suggests that the IS/MND does not address the potential for bird mortality due to"window collisions"affiliated with implementation of the proposed Section 4.4,page 4-14 Project's potential significant Project.The commenter estimates that the Project would result in at least 234 bird deaths per year and would require the implementation of mitigation pertaining to impacts on wildlife by window pre-and post-construction surveys of flight activity and siting and design of the project.The commenter is directed to Section 4.4,page 4-14 of the IS/MND.The City's collisions. threshold of significance for biological resources related to birds is whether the project would adversely affect special-status species or a sensitive habitat.Special- status species are defined as species that are included on one or more of the following lists:Plant and wildlife species that are listed as threatened or endangered,or are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered,under the Federal Endangered Species Act(ESA)or California Endangered Species Act(CESA)14;California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW)-designated Species of Special Concern(SSC),or designated Fully Protected Species15;and Plants designated by the 9) CO CD 14 Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act(Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations[CFR]17.12[fisted plants],Title 50 CFR 17.11[listed animals]and includes notices in the Federal Register for proposed species).Species listed or fV proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act(Title 14 California Code of Regulations 670.5). 's California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB).October 2020.Special Animals List.California Department of Fish and Wildlife.Sacramento,CA. Page 13 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference California Native Plant Society(CNPS)and CDFW with a California Rare Plant Rank(CRPR).1°While common bird species do occur in the proposed project area, the BSA is not expected to support special-status bird species or suitable habitat for sensitive species.Therefore,there is no potential for a significant impact on birds. The commenter also suggests the project design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to bird collisions and recommends siting and design mitigation measures.Project design will be refined,and the final design reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation. The commenter claims that at least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the Project area as listed in Table 2 of Exhibit B.As previously discussed,the biological assessment comprises a desktop review of existing databases and identified biological resources that may occur in the BSA,including special-status plants and wildlife,USFWS's Critical Habitat,and previously delineated waters of the U.S.and state of California.Additional sources of information on special-status species in California were reviewed,given that CNDDB is not inclusive of all current known occurrence information.The probability of occurrence evaluation for special-status species identified during the database reviews was supplemented by AECOM's professional knowledge of the area and included reviews of other published sources of information regarding special-status species in California.These latter sources include the following:eBird website 77;Inaturalist website1t;Calflora website19;and Western Bat Working Group(WBWG)website20,two of which were also used to populate Table 2 in Exhibit B.The desktop review yielded records for 49 special- status plant species and 52 special-status wildlife species that have been documented within the Guasti and surrounding eight quadrangles,however due to the urban location and lack of naturalized habitats onsite,there is low potential for any special-status bird to occur onsite.Although the project site is located within the Pacific Flyway,a migratory pathway for west coast birds,the BSA does not provide naturalized habitats or desirable vegetation to attract special-status birds to stopover.Then BSA does not provide connection to or is it adjacent to naturalized habitats where special-status birds would be more likely to stopover during migration. 11 vi.The IS/MND fails to address the 17-18 The commenter states that the IS/MND does not address the Project's potential to impact wildlife from additional traffic generated by the proposed Project and N/A Project's potential significant estimates that"operations over 50 years would accumulate 163,820 wildlife fatalities."The Project site is located in a highly developed,urbanized area adjacent to impacts on wildlife from additional residential and commercial development and a major roadway where heavy traffic already occurs.As previously discussed in Section 4.4,Biological Resources,page traffic generated by the Project. 4-23,the Project site and BSA are not located within or intersect with a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site.Although ornamental trees and shrubs along the border of the Project site provide some opportunities for cover,foraging,and nesting,existing anthropogenic disturbances such as traffic, noise,mowing,and threats by domestic dogs result in a low potential for suitable wildlife habitat.Therefore,based on the surrounding conditions(urban area),the Project is not anticipated to significantly increase vehicle strikes of wildlife compared to existing conditions.Additionally,impacts to biological resources pertain to sensitive habitat or special-status species and the estimates of wildlife fatalities provided by the commenter do not distinguish between common and widespread species and special-status species.Please note that the reference material provided by the commenter from Contra Costa County in 2009 may not be applicable to the Project area as the surrounding environment/conditions are different. 12 vii.The IS/MND fails to adequately 18-19 The commenter claims that the IS/MND fails to adequately address the Project's potential cumulative impacts on wildlife.The commenter is directed to Section 4.4, Section 4.4,Biological Resources; address the Project's potential Biological Resources and Section 4.21,Mandatory Findings of Significance,pages 4-77 and 4-78 of the Draft IS/MND,and Appendix B of the Draft IS/MND which has Section 4.21,Mandatory Findings of cumulative impacts on wildlife. been revised to clarify that the proposed Project is located in an urban area and does not support native vegetation communities.Therefore,special-status wildlife have Significance,pages 4-77 and 4-78; low potential to occur.The BSA occurs within an industrial center of the Los Angeles Basin and does not occur within or intersect a recognized/established regional Appendix B wildlife corridor.However,the BSA is located within the Pacific Flyway which is an important migration pathway for many migrating bird species.Project construction activities(i.e.,increased noise,human presence,vibration),although temporary,would likely result in wildlife avoidance of the area during the construction timeframe. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to habitat fragmentation and protect roosting bats,burrowing owls,and nesting birds that may occur on the Project site.As such,the proposed Project would not have a potentially significant impact on biological resources,and cumulatively considerable impacts to wildlife would be less than significant. 13 viii.The pre-construction surveys 19-20 The commenter states that pre-construction surveys identified in the IS/MND are not sufficient to address potential impacts to birds and bats that may be present at the Section 4.4,Biological Resources,pages identified in the IS/MND are not site and recommends undertaking detection surveys before pre-construction surveys.At the request of CDFW,the mitigation for nesting birds and roosting bats has 4-14 and 4-15 sufficient to address potential been revised and separated to clarify the differences in survey methodology and timing.Original Mitigation Measure BIO-1(now Mitigation Measure BIO-3)has been impacts to birds and bats that may revised to address a pre-construction survey and habitat avoidance and minimization measures relating to nesting birds,of which the survey has no specific timeframe. be present at the site. Additionally,a mitigation measure(now Mitigation Measure BIO-1)has been included and separated from the measures set forth at BIO-3 to address bat roosting.This mitigation measure BIO-1 would implement a pre-construction survey and roost avoidance and minimization measures during construction to reduce impacts to bat roosting to less than significant.Finally,as the burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC species,and as a protocol-level survey was not conducted for burrowing owls,the possibility of this species within the BSA cannot be entirely ruled out.However,similar to the western yellow bat,there is a low potential for the occurrence of burrowing owl at the project site due to the low quality of habitat and anthropogenic disturbances(e.g.,traffic,noise,mowing,and threats by domestic dogs).Therefore,the IS/MND has been revised to include a discussion of this species as a species with the low potential to have marginal habitat supported by the BSA.Additionally, cc) (p 's Plants listed as rare under the Califomia Native Plant Protection Act(California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). "The Cornell Lab of Ornithology:Ebird Website.2020.Available at http://www.ebird.org.Accessed on September 11,2020. 'a!naturalist Open Source Software.iNaturalist website.2020.Available at http://inaturalist.org.Accessed on September 11,2020. W1s Calflora website.2020.Available at http://caltlora.org.Accessed on September 11,2020. Western Bat Working Group website.2020.Available at http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/.Accessed on September 28,2020. Page 14 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference # s Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been incorporated at the request of CDFW to implement a pre-construction survey and burrowing owl habitat avoidance and minimization measures during construction as a precautionary measure to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent any potential impacts to burrowing owls. 14 C.The IS/MND Relied on 20-21 The commenter states that the CalEEMod inputs were inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND resulting in an underestimation of the Projects emissions Section 4.3,Air Quality;Section 4.8 Unsubstantiated Input Parameters and requests the model be corrected.The commenter is directed to Section 4.3 Air Quality,Section 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions,and Appendices A and F to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions;Appendix to Estimate Project Emissions and Draft IS/MND which have all been revised to more appropriately reflect the proposed Project's air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. A;Appendix F Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze The comment predominately focuses on the notion that the input parameters in the CalEEMod analysis were"unsubstantiated"deviations from the model defaults that the Project's Air Quality Impacts. underestimated the residential land use square footage,thus underestimating emissions.However,the land use size parameters that were incorporated into the CalEEMod analysis were based on the contemporaneous site plan for the proposed Project at the time the analysis was conducted.The CalEEMod database populates residential land use size parameters based on broadly averaged default values(i.e.,1,000 square feet per dwelling unit for multifamily residences).The CalEEMod default values are able to be modified with project-specific parameters such as proposed land use size,which they were in this case.The most recent site plan uses were not explicitly identified in the MND because they were not prepared until after the MND was circulated;that text has been updated to include a summary of the presently proposed Project land uses.The use of project-specific information does not render the CalEEMod land use inputs invalid.The comment erroneously relies on the upper end of the range of apartment unit sizes as an average in stating that the residential land use size is underestimated. The following table provides a summary of the land use sizes that were input to CalEEMod and the currently proposed land use sizes under the most recent project design.The analysis and MND have been updated to reflect the most recent version of the proposed Project design including the increase in swimming pool size. Furthermore,the total building floor area that was accounted for in the prior analysis was actually greater than the revised land uses,which reflects that the original analysis was conservative in nature.The updated total residential floor area of 226,649 includes both the 259 apartment units and the single 1,570 square foot live/work townhouse.The comment that the land use sizes as input to CalEEMod were incorrect is incorrect,as the square footages reflect the proposed Project design and should be used instead of the CalEEMod defaults.In accordance with the User's Guide for CalEEMod,a reference to the site plan was provided in the remarks on the land use input screen. Land Use Type CalEEMod Land Use Original Square Updated Square Footage Footage Apartments Apartments—Midrise 228,000 225,079 Live/Work Units Condo/Townhouse 1,570 1,570 Retail Strip Mall 3,339 2,436 Leasing Office/Amenities General Office 4,900 5,537 Building Area Subtotal 237,809 234,622 Swimming Pool Recreational Swimming Pool 3,000 3,572 Interior Green Space City Park 14,375 14,375 Subterranean Parking Garage Enclosed Garage w/Elevator 106,000 89,810 Surface Parking Lot Parking Lot 80,000 64,690 15 i.The 1S/MND relies on an 21 The commenter states an unsubstantiated reduction to the floor surface area of the Project's residential units underestimates the Project's construction and operational N/A unsubstantiated reduction of land emissions. use size. The comment inaccurately states that there was an unsubstantiated reduction to the floor surface area of the residential units.CalEEMod contains broadly average default values(i.e.,1,000 square feet per multifamily residence)that are not project-specific.The model included 228,000 square feet of apartment space in addition to the live/work unit(modeled as a condo/townhouse).These values were based on the contemporaneous proposed Project design and site plan at the time the analysis was conducted.The CalEEMod User's Guide states that,"CalEEMod was...designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project-specific information,when available,provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA."The substantial evidence in this case is the architectural design of the proposed Project.Furthermore,new site plans were prepared that determined the proposed apartment floor area would be approximately 226,649 square feet,which includes the live/work unit.The analysis and MND have been updated to reflect the most recent version of the proposed Project design including the increase in swimming pool size.Furthermore,the total building floor area that was accounted for in the prior analysis was actually greater than the revised CO land uses,which reflects that the original analysis was conservative in nature.The modeling has been updated to reflect current project design,but the comment is (D incorrect in asserting that emissions were underestimated based on the use of proposed Project-specific input parameters.Project-specific information is preferred where available. O) Page 15 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference 16 ii.The IS/MND relies on 21-22 The commenter states the architectural and area coating emission factors used in CalEEMod were reduced from the default. N/A unsubstantiated reductions to The CalEEMod default values for building envelope coatings were modified based on the SCAQMD Rule 1113 effective January 1,2019.All building envelope coatings architectural and area coating must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 that includes a VOC content limit of 50 g/L for all new construction.The comment claims that the changes to the default data emission factors. were not justified in the IS/MND.However,the CalEEMod User's Guide states that,"If the user chooses to modify any defaults,an explanation will be required in the Remarks box found at the bottom of the screen to justify and support the modification."In accordance with the CalEEMod User's Guide,the acknowledgement of SCAQMD code compliance is sufficient justification for the modification to the default value.Language identifying compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 has been added to the IS/MND. 17 ill.The IS/MND relies on an 22 The commenter states that the model default values for fireplaces were altered without justification,and that the area source operational emissions should account for N/A unsubstantiated reduction to gas the outdoor fireplace located in the courtyard. fireplace values. The proposed Project design does not include any hearths or fireplaces within the residential units.The CalEEMod analysis was updated to account for a single outdoor fireplace. 18 iv.The IS/MND relies on incorrect 22-23 The commenter states the CO2 intensity factors were insufficiently reduced and underestimates the Project's GHG emissions. N/A CO2 intensity factors. The comment refers to the 2020 Power Content Label(PCL)for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility(RCMU),which was not publicly available at the time of IS/MND preparation.After conferring with RCMU engineering department to obtain and review the 2020 PCL,it was determined that the carbon intensity factor for supplied power to customers of 630 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalents per megawatt-hour(630 IbsCOee/MWh)included on the 2020 PCL only applied to electricity supplied by"unspecified sources within the RCMU power mix."However,as a conservative approach,revised modeling was prepared that used the 630 IbCO2e/MWh factor for the entirety of proposed Project's electricity use.This CO2 intensity value is very conservative(it overestimates CO2 emissions)given that the renewable portion of the power mix is anticipated to increase between 2020 and 2024 when the proposed Project is operational,which would lower the average GHG intensity of supplied power to RCMU customers.Nonetheless,the CalEEMod emissions modeling was updated with the RCMU-specific CO2 intensity factor based on the 2020 PCL,which resulted in an 18 percent increase in GHG emissions per kilowatt of electricity used.The revised emissions modeling incorporating the RCMU carbon intensity factor determined that annual GHG emissions associated with proposed project operations would be 2,935.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents(2,890 MTCO2e),which would remain below the applicable quantitative significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. 19 v.The IS/MND fails to model all 23 The commenter states CalEEMod should include the entire amount of required parking(not just the reduction)to conduct the most conservative analysis. N/A required parking. Parkingincluded in the CalEEMod analysis is based on current project design,which is consistent withpresent industrystandards for conductingsuch modeling.No Y P 1 9 change is warranted. Further,it is noted that parking was removed from the CEQA Guidelines and the adequacy of parking is no longer an impact criteria under CEQA.As such,whether the project provides sufficient parking is not a consideration regarding the adequacy of the Project's CEQA document. 20 vi.The IS/MND relies on incorrect 24 The commenter states the Project's total solid waste generation rates are grossly underestimated resulting in underestimated operational GHG emissions. N/A solid waste generation rates. The original analysis that was incorporated into the MND relied on the CalEEMod default waste generation factors,which are not project-specific.After conferring with the project team,solid waste generation rates were updated in CalEEMod to be consistent with the analysis disclosed in the Environmental Information Form—Initial Study Part I for the proposed Project based on the Project's current design as permitted.The updated solid waste calculations resulted in residential solid waste generation and associated indirect GHG emissions estimates increasing from 120.06 tons per year producing 60.38 MTCO2e to 580.32 tons per year producing 291.85 MTCO2e,respectively.Replacing CalEEMod default values with project-specific information is the recommended approach where these adjustments can be verified with the design team,which was the case in this circumstance.Using project-specific solid waste generation rates provides a more accurate representation of the proposed project.Relying on the updated solid waste generation rates,the updated GHG emissions analysis estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 2,935.3 MTCO2e annually.This magnitude of emissions would remain below the applicable threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.Furthermore,the proposed project's GHG emissions associated with mobile and energy sources would gradually decrease in the future as tenant and patron vehicles become more fuel- efficient and the RCMU power mix delivered to customers is supplied by additional renewable resources that do not produce GHG emissions. 21 vii.The IS/MND relies on the use of 24 The commenter states the operational vehicle fleet mix percentages were underestimated resulting in lower Project operational emissions. N/A underestimated operational vehicle The traffic analysis for the proposed project modeled daily vehicle trips associated with the residential uses and commercial retail space.Residential uses are not fleet mix percentages. generators of heavy duty truck trips.The default fleet mix for San Bernardino County includes approximately 6.5%heavy-heavy duty trucks and 2%medium-heavy duty trucks.This is the countywide average fleet mix for all vehicle travel and does not accurately describe the vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed Project residential uses. The residential use fleet mix was modified to omit heavy-heavy and medium-heavy duty trucks as well as buses and motorhomes,as these vehicles would not be used by residents of the Project for routine commuting and other daily regional trips.The commercial retail fleet mix was left unchanged from the CalEEMod default mix for San Bernardino County to reflect vendor deliveries to the shops that would occur as part of standard operations.A note has been added to cC1(D the CalEEMod Remarks section and the IS/MND to acknowledge this change.No further changes to the analysis are warranted. 2 ' viii.The IS/MND relies on 25 The commenter states the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values were changed resulting in lower Project construction-related emissions. N/A to unsubstantiated reductions to off- (71 road equipment horsepower values Page 16 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference # s Horsepower values were based on construction equipment inventory information provided by the Applicant.Changes to CalEEMod default values with information specific to the proposed Project are justified in the corresponding Remarks sections of the model output and a summary of project-specific information has been added to the MND.No change to the analysis is warranted. 23 ix.The IS/MND relies on the 25 The commenter states that there is no justification for the application of the"Water Exposed Area"selection in the CalEEMod analysis and asserts that the selection N/A incorrect application of construction- was made as a"Construction Off-Road Equipment Mitigation."The comment suggests that the Project's construction emissions may be underestimated by artificially related mitigation measures reducing emissions.Also,the comment states that because mitigation is not identified this alteration to the CalEEMod analysis qualifies as a design feature that cannot be reliably monitored or enforced. The comment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the CalEEMod program estimates project emissions and accounts for reductions associated with code compliance versus explicitly identified mitigation measures,and makes inaccurate claims based on its flawed reasoning.Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for Fugitive Dust control includes a best management practice related to daily watering activities of disturbed ground areas and material stockpiles.Research conducted by the SCAQMD determined that watering for fugitive dust control reduces emissions by approximately 61 percent.Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 is adequate justification of the selection of watering as a baseline best management practice within CalEEMod that is a standard condition of approval that will be imposed by the City. The adopted EIR for PlanRC 2040,the City's General Plan update,notes that"[a]ll projects are subject to South Coast AQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of activity,including:...Rule 403,Fugitive Dust." Accordingly,the City's Standard Conditions of Approval relating to Air Quality include:"5.3-3:The City shall ensure that discretionary development that will generate fugitive dust emissions during construction activities will,to the extent feasible,incorporate BMPs that exceed South Coast AQMD's Rule 403 requirements to reduce emissions to be less than applicable thresholds" (General Plan EIR,pp.5.3-13 to 5.3-15.) The comment is also inaccurate in suggesting that code compliance is a project design feature just because it is not identified as a mitigation measure.This claim represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the standard industry practices related to compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations as they apply to land use development projects. Furthermore,the comment inaccurately identifies code compliance as a mitigation measure,when in actuality the construction best management practices are standards and not included to mitigate a potentially significant impact.Code compliance is not mitigation,and no mitigation measures were identified to reduce on-site fugitive dust emissions as the regional and localized thresholds were not exceeded.The CalEEMod analysis in no way underestimates fugitive dust emissions by selecting a minimization measure related to code compliance.In contrast,daily pollutant emissions are likely conservative as disclosed in the MND due to the intermittent use of ground disturbing equipment in practicality.No change is warranted based on the incorrect suggestion that employing standard best management practices in compliance with SCAQMD regulations qualifies as a mitigation measure.Indeed,Courts have upheld CEQA documents that required specific"best management practices"to be implemented as part of a plan.Endangered Habitats League,Inc.v.County of Orange(2005)131 Cal.App.4th 777,794. 24 x.The IS/MND relies on the 25-26 The commenter states operational design features related to energy and water should be included as mitigation measures.Sustainable Design Features of the IS/MND N/A incorrect application of operational which identifies the energy efficiency elements that would be included as part of the Project design.These Sustainable Design Features are referenced where mitigation measures. applicable within the Energy analysis.The Project's compliance with 2019 Title 24 energy efficiency standards for residential buildings is included within the Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis(see Section 1.5.1.4). These components are integral to the proposed building composition and Project design and would not be considered mitigation and should not be included as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These sustainable design features are accounted for in the proposed design for the project,not implemented after the fact in order to reduce or mitigate an identified environmental impact. They are analyzed as such in the impact analysis of the IS/MND—i.e.,the impact conclusions take into account environmental protection afforded by these design features. As such,they are appropriately identified in the IS/MND as Sustainable Design Features and are not project mitigation.No changes to the original operational impact determination of Less Than Significant for impacts on air quality have been made. 25 D.An Updated Air Model Analysis 26 The commenter states that the IS/MND's air model analysis does not provide summer and winter CalEEMod output files,and therefore the analysis should not be relied Section 4.3,pages 4-8 through 4-11 Is Needed to Determine Whether upon.This comment references the impact assessment in Section 4.3,pages 4-8 through 4-11 of the Draft IS/MND. the Project Will Have a Significant The comment is baseless in its assertion that the analysis is unreliable because only a Winter daily emissions CalEEMod output file was provided in the supporting Air Quality Impact. documentation.The MND presents the maximum daily emissions of the six regulated pollutants for which the SCAQMD has established regional thresholds.The differences between Summer and Winter emissions are marginal and do not change the conclusions of the analyses.Summer and winter output files have been provided with the revised analysis.Maximum daily emissions during both summer and winter construction remain below the regional SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants.The commenter's claim that the analysis is unreliable is unsubstantiated and reflects a lack of understanding of air quality assessments under CEQA. As a consequence,this comment relies on speculation and provides no substantial evidence in proposing that an updated air model analysis is needed to address the - differences between summer and winter outputs(the opposite is true for the reasons detailed above). Since CEQA does not permit a finding to rest on speculation,this comment raises no evidence of a significant impact. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15145. CD C) Page 17 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference 26 E.The IS/MND Fails to Adequately 26-28 The commenter recommends that the applicant prepare a construction and operational health risk analysis(HRA)in order to address the Project's potential to emit Section 4.3,pages 4-11 through 4-12 Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel diesel particulate matter and in quantities that would pose a risk to human health.The commenter also suggests that the Draft IS/MND should establish a delineation of Particulate Matter Emissions. potential health impact associated with diesel particulate emissions. As a preliminary matter,policies set by CARB(the agency that regulates air quality in this air basin)do not require applicants to prepare an operational HRA for residential land use development projects.Operation of the proposed Project would not involve any mobile or stationary sources of substantial toxic air contaminant emissions.The GARB has identified the following types of land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions during operational activities: • Distribution centers • Rail yards • Ports • Refineries • Chrome platers • Dry cleaners using perchloroethylene • Gasoline dispensing facilities The proposed project would not introduce a new substantial source of TAC emission during future operations.The commenter did not provide any substantive evidence to support the claim that operation of the proposed project could generate substantial emissions of pollutants that would pose public health concerns warranting an HRA. Exhibit C to the comment letter(at p.18)makes an unsubstantiated assertion that operation of the proposed project would generate approximately 86 pounds per year of DPM.This value was apparently derived from the annual operational CalEEMod output file that included an estimate of approximately"0.0429 tons/yr'of"Exhaust PMio."The commenter inappropriately assumes that all of the PMio emissions during operations would be generated by diesel sources,when in reality only a small fraction would be diesel PM and a vast majority would not be produced by diesel fuel combustion.The claim is patently false and a completely inaccurate representation of project emissions.Operational PMio emissions in the CalEEMod output file are predominantly from non-diesel sources(i.e.,residential vehicle trips). This error made by the commenter displays a misunderstanding of the CalEEMod emissions model and is completely wrong in its assertions. Despite the fact that preparation of an operational HRA is not standard practice for residential land use development projects,regarding emissions that would be generated during construction of the proposed project,an inhalation-pathway health risk assessment(HRA)was conducted to analyze potential exposures to diesel particulate matter(diesel PM)concentrations during construction activities.The HRA was prepared in accordance with the 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA)HRA guidelines.The HRA determined that emissions of diesel particulate matter generated by construction equipment would not produce ground-level concentrations at sensitive receptor locations that would pose potential health concerns related to toxic air contaminants and would not exceed the SCAQMD carcinogenic risk threshold. It should be noted that the HRA modeling took into account the implementation of off-road equipment outfitted with engines meeting Tier 4 Final emissions standards, which Project contractors would be required to use in compliance with the City's General Plan EIR as standard condition of approval.This use of Tier 4 engines is included both in the revised project description and as a Best Management Practice in the Air Quality analysis of the updated Draft IS/MND. While this was always understood to be part of the Project design and construction equipment schedule,further analysis has been added to the Project Description that makes it explicit that this is a standard practice for the project,will be required by the City pursuant to the Project's conditions of approval and in accordance with the General Plan Update EIR(adopted on December 15,2021),and can be implemented by the Project's contractors. As such,the Air Quality impact analysis of the IS/MND takes into account the environmental protection afforded by the use of this equipment,including the supplemental construction HRA that has been prepared by TAHA. As reflected in the IS/MND,the City will enforce the requirement that the Project implement Tier 4 equipment through the following Project condition of approval: "Require the use of off-road diesel-powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the California Air Resources Board(CARB)and U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)Tier 4 off-road emissions standards for equipment during construction of the Proposed Project.Successful contractor(s)must demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground disturbing and construction activities.A copy of each unit's certified tier specification or model year specification and CARB or South Coast AQMD operating permit(if applicable)shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment." Thjs condition is consistent with the City's General Plan Update EIR(adopted on December 15,2021)which states that standard conditions of approval for future projects will include a condition that future projects"that would generate construction-related emissions that exceed applicable thresholds"will include mitigation measures such as requiring use of construction equipment rated to tier 3 or tier 4 standards. (See,City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update EIR,Section 5.3[Air Quality],Standard Conditions of Approval,pp.5.3-13 to 5.3-14.) In anticipation of this requirement,Wood Partners has confirmed with the relevant Project subcontractors that Tier 4 equipment is available and will be utilized during Project construction. The commenter suggests that conductingthe recommended HRA would reveal additional potentiallysignificant impacts to human health,specifically regarding 99 9 P P Y 9 9 sensitive receptors and toxic air contaminants(TACs).The commenter references Section 4.3,pages 4-11 through 4-12 of the IS/MND. The results of the HRA prepared by the applicant shows the opposite is true. An inhalation-pathway HRA was prepared to assess concentrations of toxic air contaminants(TACs)that would v result from the use of diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment on the project site.A project-specific construction schedule and equipment activity inventory were Page 18 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference developed with input from the applicant to determine the magnitude of diesel particulate matter(diesel PM)emissions that would occur throughout the duration of construction activities.AERMOD is the Gaussian-plume air dispersion model recommended by regulatory agencies for use in estimating concentrations of air pollutants near emissions sources for air quality standard attainment demonstrations,HRAs,and other applications. AERMOD was used to simulate average concentrations of diesel PM that would occur at sensitive receptor locations during construction of the proposed project.The inhalation-pathway HRA was conducted in accordance with guidance established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA,2015). Results of the HRA determined that the maximally exposed individual resident(MEIR)would be a child receptor with an incremental increase in carcinogenic risk of no more than 2.64 excess cancers per million.This exposure would represent only 26.4 percent of the applicable SCAQMD threshold for TAC exposures of 10 excess cancers per million.Therefore,construction of the proposed project would not result in substantial TAC concentrations affecting nearby sensitive receptors. The comment's assertion is based on underlying analysis conducted independently in CalEEMod that did not rely on project-specific construction schedule and equipment inventory information. 27 F.There is Substantial Evidence 28-29 Refer to response to Comment 26.In response to this comment letter and in order to provide the most conservative analysis,a construction HRA was prepared for the Section 4.3,pages 4-11 through 4-12 that the Project May have a Project that determined emissions of diesel particulate matter would not result in possible sensitive receptor exposures that would exceed the SCAQMD carcinogenic Significant Health Risk Impact risk threshold.The HRA that was prepared by the commenter's expert relied on construction schedule and equipment inventory information that did not accurately reflect what is anticipated and analyzed for the proposed project.The assertion regarding operational DPM emissions is incorrect and mischaracterizes how CalEEMod estimates emissions. 28 G.The IS/MND Failed to 29-30 The commenter challenges the methods used to estimate the Project's GHG emissions,which in turn determined that the Project would have a less than significant Section 4.8,pages 4-29 and 4-30; Adequately Analyze Greenhouse impact on GHG emissions and would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds.The commenter suggests that the air model used to make these estimates and determinations Appendix F Gas Impacts and Thus the Project was a flawed model,which is a reiteration of Comment 2,contained within the comment letter on pages 21-22.This comment references Section 4.8(Greenhouse Gas May Result in Significant Emissions),pages 4-29 and 4-30 of the IS/MND as well as Appendix F of the IS/MND. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. See responses to Comment 14 and Comment 15,above.The project land uses have been updated to the current project design and site plan.The CalEEMod analysis was updated with the land use parameters.Emissions remain below the SCAQMD interim screening threshold that the City is planning on adopting. The commenter states that the SCAQMD thresholds for GHG are outdated and recommends that GHG analysis use the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target and include mitigation measures in Section 4.8 of the IS/MND in order to reduce impacts to less than significant. The City as lead agency has determined that a threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e for GHG emissions is appropriate for the proposed Project.The City based its threshold on the GHG threshold for mixed use and non-industrial projects recommended by SCAQMD,an expert agency with primary authority over air pollutants including GHG in the project area.This SCAQMD threshold was developed based on substantial evidence following the methodology established by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association(CAPCOA)of establishing a target of a 90 percent capture rate of emissions that would require further analysis,"while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small development projects that will contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide emissions"(CAPCOA, 2008).Reliance upon the draft interim SCAQMD threshold is supported on the scientific basis of achieving an 80 percent reduction below 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2050 in accordance with Executive Order S-3-05,which was used by SCAQMD staff in proposing the draft interim threshold consistent with the CAPCOA analysis. The SCAQMD draft guidance document included the following language regarding the objective of the proposed policy(SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document—Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold,page 3-2,emphasis added): "The overarching policy objective with regard to establishing a GHG significance threshold for the purposes of analyzing GHG impacts pursuant to CEQA is to establish a performance standard or target GHG reduction objective that will ultimately contribute to reducing GHG emissions to stabilize climate change.Full implementation of the Governor's Executive Order S-3-05 would reduce GHG emissions(to]80 percent below 1990 levels or 90 percent below current levels by 2050.It is anticipated that achieving the Executive Order's objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap GHG concentrations at 450 ppm,thus,stabilizing global climate. As described below,staff's recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal uses a tiered approach to determining significance.Tier 3,which is expected to be the primary tier by which the AQMD will determine significance for projects where it is the lead agency,uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level.Specifically,the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects.A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis,including a negative declaration,mitigated negative declaration,or an environmental impact. Therefore,the policy objective of staff's recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal is to achieve an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or 71 modified stationary source projects.A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change.Further,a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth,while setting the emission CD threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions.This assertion is based on the fact that staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target(85 O) MMTCO2e/year)." CO Page 19 of 20 City of Rancho Cucamonga—Alta Cuvee MND Responses to Comments(Draft IS/MND) January 31,2022 Comment Section/Topic Page(s) Response MND Reference The commenter states that the GHG analysis of the IS/MND did not include performance-based standards under the California Air Resource Board's(CARB's)Scoping Plan or the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG)Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy(RTP/SCS)and as such,the impact determinations are inaccurate.Reliance upon the draft interim screening threshold for GHG emissions precludes any further quantitative analysis of GHG emissions.The threshold value was determined based on California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association(CAPCOA)research that established a target of capturing 90 percent of GHG emissions above the screening threshold and excluding smaller projects from further analysis and potential mitigation.This target capture rate was derived in consideration of the Executive Order S-3-05 objective of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Furthermore,the proposed Project was screened from a VMT analysis as set forth in the Transportation(4.17)section of the MND for the following reasons: • Project is located within a half-mile of high quality transit:Omnitrans Route 66 alignment providing 15-minute peak hour headways is within a half-mile. • Project has a Floor Area Ratio equal to or greater than 0.75(proposed Project is greater than 1.0). • Project shall not supply more parking than required by City Code:proposed Project includes parking reduction of 10%consistent with City code. • Project is consistent with RTP/SCS land use assumptions:proposed Project includes 260 multifamily units,Connect SoCal 2020 RTP/SCS forecasts approximately 9,600 additional housing units in the City,of which approximately 5,184 will be multifamily.The proposed Project would not introduce a disproportionate amount of growth that would result in SCAG assumptions being rendered invalid. • Project would not replace affordable housing units with market-rate housing units:The site is currently vacant;no affordable units would be displaced. The proposed Project is consistent with SCAG forecast assumptions and is exempt from a VMT analysis,and therefore no further performance-based analysis is warranted. 29 H.There is Substantial Evidence of 30-31 The commenter asserts that construction noise would be significant even with mitigation.The commenter is directed to Section 4.13,Noise on pages 4-46 through 4- Section 4.13,Noise;Appendix H a Fair Argument that the Project 53 of the IS/MND.Future noise levels were predicted for the future year 2023 with project traffic.The analysis also includes consideration of stationary sources(HVAC, Will Have Significant Noise Impact. parking etc.).Page 4-50 discusses the incremental reduction in construction noise levels with the implementation of each of the six mitigation measures(Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-6),and Table 4.13-4 shows the total combined noise reduction for construction at off-site receptors to below the 65 dBA residential thresholds and the 70 dBA commercial use threshold.As such,the construction noise analysis is adequate and the application of mitigation measures to get below the threshold is substantiated by the example mitigation for temporary noise barriers(i.e.,temporary noise barriers produced by Echo Barriers are listed as capable of reducing noise by 10 to 20 dBA[Acoustical Surfaces,Inc.Echo Barrier,available at acoustical surfaces.com])which was cited and included in Appendix H. 30 Conclusion 31 This comment states the IS/MND should be withdrawn and an EIR prepared and circulated for public review.As discussed in the above responses to comments,no N/A presentation has been made of substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project would cause a significant impact not evaluated and proposed to be mitigated to less than significant in the IS/MND,and the IS/MND has been revised to clarify the project description,impact discussions and mitigation measures.Since no new significant environmental impacts would result from the Project and no new mitigation is proposed,an EIR is not required. 31 Exhibit A 32-51 The commenter includes an indoor air quality analysis comparison as an attachment to their comment letter.This comment is noted for the record and no further N/A response to this comment is required. 32 Exhibit B 52-81 The commenter includes a biological resources analysis as an attachment to their comment letter.This comment is noted for the record and no further response to this N/A comment is required. 33 Exhibit C 82-337 The commenter includes an air quality analysis,GHG,and health risk analysis as an attachment to their comment letter.This comment is noted for the record and no N/A further response to this comment is required. 0) CO CD CO Page 20 of 20 Exhibit B AECOM's Response to SAFER's April 13, 2022 Comment Letter Exhibit B -1- Page 1470 ACOMAECOM 213.593.8100 tel 300 S Grand Ave,8th Floor 213.593.8053 fax Los Angeles,CA 90071 www.aecom.com Exhibit B: Response to SAFER's April 13, 2022 Comment Letter Date: May 31, 2022 Re: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project To: City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council From: Jerry Flores,AECOM This memo was prepared by AECOM in response to comments submitted on April 13, 2022 by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) regarding the recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)that was prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project(proposed Project) located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 1. Background The MND for the proposed Project was first circulated for public comment between September 1, 2021, and October 1, 2021, during which time the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) received four comment letters, including one from SAFER dated October 1, 2021. AECOM prepared responses to these comments (Responses to Comments), and they were included as Appendix N to the recirculated MND. The Responses to Comments, along with applicable clarifications and modifications to the MND were part of the MND recirculation (Recirculated MND) which had a public comment period between February 8, 2022,through February 28, 2022. SAFER did not submit an additional comment letter during this public review period. On April 13, 2022, the day of the Project's adoption of the MND by the City's Planning Commission, SAFER submitted a comment letter on the Recirculated MND. In reviewing the April 13,2022 comments, it is AECOM's determination that none of the comments offer any evidence that any fact, analysis, or determination in the Recirculated MND is incorrect or not supported with substantial evidence, nor do they present any new or exacerbated environmental impacts. All but three of the comments reiterate SAFER's same comments from the October 1, 2021 letter, were fully addressed by the Responses to Comments, and do not warrant further response from AECOM. Three of the comments, though they do not raise new or exacerbated environmental impacts, differed from the comments in SAFER's October 1, 2021 and therefore, for clarification purposes,AECOM provides written responses to those comments below. Exhibit B—Response to SAFER April 13,2022 Comment Letter Page 1471 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 1 A=COM 2. Response to Comments —SAFER April 13, 2022 Comment Letter. Section/Comment Response I. There is Substantial Evidence that the See MND,Appendix N, Response to Comment 4. Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts II. The RIS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife A. The wildlife baseline relied upon by See MND,Appendix N, Response to Comment 6. the RIS/MND is still woefully inadequate While there is no evidence of a new significant impact on burrowing owls or other special status species, the Project mitigation measures have been revised to include voluntary implementation of the more specific surveys as recommended by the California Department of Fish &Wildlife. Habitats can be identified at any time of day and the surveyor noted, on page 6 of the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum (Appendix B of the MND), that "no survey constraints impeded the ability of the biologist to perform the survey successfully". If high-quality habitat for a special-status species was found, or incidental observation of a special-status species was noted, during the reconnaissance field survey, follow-up presence-absence surveys would have been recommended specific to the individual species with high potential to occur. However, as discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, pages 4-13 through 4-15 of the MND, such findings and observations of a high quality habitat for a special-status species or of such a species did not occur.Additionally, the biologist who conducted the reconnaissance survey has over 12 years of experience with both wildlife and plant surveys in California and is qualified to make the determinations discussed in the MND and the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum. See this biologist's biography, under Appendix E of Appendix B, attached to the MND.As such, the reconnaissance field survey and wildlife baseline used to determine the Project's impact on biological resources are adequate and appropriate. B. The RIS/MND fails to address the See MND,Appendix N, Response to Comment 7. Project's potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity C. The RIS/MND fails to address the See MND,Appendix N, Response to Comment 9. Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife movement. D. The RIS/MND fails to address the See MND,Appendix N, Response to Comment 10. cp Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife by window collisions Exhibit B—Response to SAFER April 13,2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 2 A=COM Section/Comment Response E. The RIS/MND fails to address the See MND,Appendix N, Response to Comment 11. Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project F. The RIS/MND fails to adequately See MND,Appendix N, Response to Comment 12. address the Project's potential cumulative impacts on wildlife G. The pre-construction and burrowing See MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 13. Note that measures have been augmented in owl surveys identified in the RIS/MND response to specific direction contained in the California Department of Fish & Wildlife Comment Letter are not sufficient to address potential received during the first circulation of the MND. impacts to birds and bats that may be present at the site III. The RIS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated See MND,Appendix N, Responses to Comments 14-21. Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately • Addressing items one (1) and two (2) under Section III, the land use parameters that were Analyze the Project's Air Quality Impacts inputted to CalEEMod were based on the most recent design drawings provided by the Project team. • Addressing item three (3) under Section III, the architectural coating factors were consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) Rule 1113, which was accurately referenced. • Addressing item four (4) under Section III, hearths would not be in the residential units based on the latest design provided and only one outdoor gas fireplace would be installed. • Addressing item five (5), see MND, Appendix N, Response to Comment 21. Residential land uses do not have heavy-duty vehicle trips in their fleets. • Addressing item six (6), no changes were made to the solid waste generation rates and any discrepancies claimed are due to rounding. • Addressing item seven (7), engine horsepower values were provided by the Applicant in the construction equipment inventory. • Addressing item eight (8), requirement of Tier 4 equipment is not incorrect, it is a voluntary project design feature. Tier 4 Final equipment will be required. It is not customary to specify the "Final"vs. "Interim"standard. • Addressing item nine (9), there is no validity to this comment. Building envelope coatings must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113,and no further reductions of volatile organic compound(VOC) content were assumed in building materials. ca co Exhibit B—Response to SAFER April 13,2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 3 A=COM IV. The RIS/MND Fails to Adequately See Exhibit A, Response to Comment 26. Note that a construction health risk analysis (HRA) was Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel prepared for the proposed Project. Particulate Matter Emissions This comment is multi-faceted and is generally related to the alleged requirement that an HRA should be prepared to assess potential exposures of sensitive receptors to concentrations of diesel particulate matter(DPM) during both construction and operation of the proposed Project, and that potentially significant impacts during construction were not accurately identified. The comment suggests that input parameters used in the construction HRA were improper and that an operational HRA should have been prepared. However, the comment relies on a misunderstanding of the applicability of Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)guidance related to HRA preparation as well as a fundamentally flawed interpretation of California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)output, as described below. The first assertion in the comment is that the construction-related HRA included in the RIS/MND should have accounted for possible exposures of infantile receptors to concentrations of DPM emanating from the proposed Project construction site. The rationale behind the assertion is based on the higher susceptibility of young individuals to experience adverse health effects from air pollution exposure as discussed in the 2015 OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. On page 1-2 of the 2015 Guidance Manual's Introduction, OEHHA states that, "the intent in developing this Guidance Manual is to provide HRA procedures for use in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program or for the permitting of existing, new, or modified stationary sources." Further, "these guidelines should be used in conjunction with the emission data collected and reported pursuant to requirements of the CARB's Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulations (Title 17, CCR, Section 93300-93300.5), and the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report for the Air Toxics `Hot Spots"Program."Thus, the Guidance Manual was developed in consideration of particular sources of data that are specific to Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program projects and major stationary sources. The Project is not part of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the Project is an urban infill mixed-use development consisting of primarily mobile and area sources (i.e., non-stationary sources). Therefore, quantified emissions for the proposed Project are not subject to the above requirements and guidance. Neither the 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual nor the SCAQMD 2017 Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1 and 212 make any mention of the applicability of the specific requirements contained therein to proposed projects under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). cn The primary tool for estimating emissions of air pollutants during construction and operation of land cp use development projects under CEQA is the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The CalEEMod default data inventory is populated based on broad surveys of various existing land use types and completed construction sites. Construction of the proposed Project would last for approximately 21 months, during which time daily emissions would fluctuate based on the level of on- site activity. The emissions modeling prepared for the proposed Project relied on conservative Exhibit B—Response to SAFER April 13,2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 4 A=COM assumptions related to construction equipment activity(i.e., assuming eight hours of continuous operation per day, six days per week for a vast majority of the equipment fleet)that likely overestimated daily emissions of air pollutants relative to what will occur in reality. Construction hours would be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM when pollutant dispersion is greatest due to the height of the atmospheric mixing layer. The OEHHA Guidance Manual acknowledges that preparing HRAs for short-term projects with variable emission rates can introduce substantial uncertainty into the input assumptions. The RIS/MND analysis included an assessment of localized particulate matter emissions as well as the construction HRA and determined that impacts would be less than significant. For the purposes of CEQA, the construction emissions impacts assessment and HRA sufficiently addressed potential exposures of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD did not submit a comment regarding the emissions analysis disclosed in the RIS/MND. The comment next asserts that an alternative "fraction of time at home" (FAH)factor of 100% should have been used for the child receptor in lieu of the OEHHA-recommended value of 0.73. This FAH derives from a draft SCAQMD guidance document that(a) has not been officially adopted, and (b) only applies to projects subject to the following SCAQMD rules: Rule 1404 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants), Rule 1401.1 (Requirements for New and Relocated Facilities Near Schools), and Rule 212 (Standards for Approving [SCAQMD] Permits and Issuing Public Notice). The guidance document was drafted in this manner assuming that children would attend school near enough to home that they would still be impacted by emissions of air pollutants from large stationary sources and facilities. The proposed Project represents a standard urban infill mixed-use development that would not introduce a new substantial source of toxic air contaminant(TAC)emissions to the project area. There are no elementary schools within 1,000 feet of the proposed Project site, and the nearest elementary school is approximately 2,000 feet to the north. The SCAQMD commonly recommends 1,000 feet as a safe siting distance from large stationary sources, and therefore children attending Perdew Elementary School would not be affected by construction-related emissions. Because the SCAQMD recommendation is still in draft form and, more importantly, the proposed Project would not be subject to the corresponding SCAQMD rules, the FAH recommended by the commenter is not more relevant to the Project than the FAH used in the RIS/MND analyses. The comment also claims that a HRA should have been conducted for operation of the proposed Project. Per the Guidance Manual, however, HRAs are intended for projects in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program or for the permitting of existing, new, or modified stationary sources. As noted above, the Project is not part of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program and is considered an urban infill mixed-use development consisting primarily of mobile and area sources (i.e., non-stationary sources), and cn therefore would not introduce a new substantial source of toxic air contaminants (TACs) into the area. m Operation of the Project would not involve sources that emit substantial quantities of TACs that could cause acute or chronic health concerns. Mixed-use and residential projects are not identified by the "' SCAQMD as being sources of TACs that would warrant an operational HRA, and it would be speculative to conduct an analysis without SCAQMD's necessary oversight. Furthermore, the comment relied on a fundamentally flawed interpretation of the CalEEMod output provided in the Exhibit B—Response to SAFER April 13,2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 5 A=COM Section/Comment Response appendices to the RIS/MND. The operational screening HRA included in the comment letter relied on the assumption that the proposed Project would emit 0.0428 tons per year of DPM, which would equate to 0.2345 pounds per day. However, as indicated in the annual CalEEMod output file for the proposed Project, the 0.0428 tons per year corresponds to the total annual mobile source exhaust emissions of PM1o, which includes non-diesel vehicles. Thus, the operational HRA included in the comment egregiously overestimated the DPM emissions that would occur during proposed Project operations, reflecting a fundamentally flawed understanding of air pollutant emissions estimate methodology and CalEEMod. In sum, neither a construction nor operational HRA were required for the proposed Project, and the construction HRA was prepared based on reasonable exposure assumptions as a demonstration of due diligence to protect community health. V. There is Substantial Evidence that the See MND,Appendix N, Response to Comment 27. Note that a construction HRA was prepared for the Project May have a Significant Health Risk proposed Project. Impact VI. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze See MND,Appendix N, Response to Comment 28. Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions VII. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair See MND,Appendix N, Response to Comment 29. Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact v CD rn Exhibit B—Response to SAFER April 13,2022 Comment Letter Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project 6 Exhibit C GHG Interim Guidance Exhibit C -1- Page 1477 ATTACHMENT E SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Draft Guidance Document—Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold October 2008 Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Elaine Chang, DrPH Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E. Planning and Rules Manager Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources Susan Nakamura Author: Steve Smith,Ph.D. Program Supervisor Michael Krause Air Quality Specialist Contributors: Jeffery Inabinet Air Quality Specialist James Koizumi Air Quality Specialist Barbara Radlein Air Quality Specialist Reviewed: Barbara Baird Principal District Counsel Page 1478 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD Chairman: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D. Speaker of the Assembly Appointee Vice Chairman: S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D. Supervisor,Fourth District County of Riverside MEMBERS MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor,Fifth District County of Los Angeles MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI Councilmember,City of South Pasadena Cities of Los Angeles County,Eastern Region BILL CAMPBELL Supervisor,Third District County of Orange JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Committee Appointee RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor,City of Riverside Cities of Riverside County JOSEPH K. LYOU, PH.D Governor's Appointee GARY C. OVITT Supervisor,Fourth District County of San Bernardino JAN PERRY Councilmember,Ninth District City of Los Angeles Representative MIGUEL A. PULIDO Mayor,City of Santa Ana Cities of Orange County TONIA REYES URANGA Councilmember,City of Long Beach Cities of Los Angeles County,Western Region DENNIS YATES Mayor,City of Chino Cities of San Bernardino County EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARRY WALLERSTEIN, D. Env. Page 1479 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface List of Acronyms Chapter 1 - Introduction and Executive Summary Introduction 1-1 Purpose of This Guidance Document 1-3 California Environmental Quality Act and GHGs 1-3 Legal Authority 1-6 Contents of This Guidance Document 1-8 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs General Background Information on GHGs 2-1 Legislative Background- California 2-2 Initial Guidance on Evaluating GHGs Pursuant to CEQA 2-5 Chapter 3 —Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal Introduction 3-1 GHG Analysis Considerations 3-2 Draft Staff Interim GHG Significance Threshold Proposal 3-9 Chapter 4—Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions Introduction 4-1 GHG Analysis Recommendations 4-1 Chapter —Conclusion Introduction 5-1 Future Action Items 5-1 References TABLES Table 2-1: Statutes and Executive Order Approach 2-9 Table 2-2: Tiered Threshold Options 2-11 TOC- 1 October 2008 Page 1480 Table of Contents Table 3-1: Global Warming Potential of Kyoto GHGs 3-4 Table 3-2: 2002-2004 Average Emissions and 2020 Projected Emissions (Business-as-Usual) 3-6 Table 3-3: URBEMIS Run Results (based on 55 lbs/day NOx or 10 tons/year NOx total Operational and Area Sources) 3-15 Table 3-4 Comparison of CARB's and AQMD's Interim GHG Significance Thresholds 3-18 Table 5-1: California Air Resources Board GHG Emission Reduction Strategies 5-3 Table 5-2: GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Implemented by CEC and CPUC 5-5 FIGURES Figure 2-1: Global Anthropogenic GHG Emissions 2-1 Figure 2-2: 2004 GHG Emissions by Sector 2-4 Figure 2-3: 1990 GHG Emissions by Sector 2-4 Figure 3-1: Revised Staff Proposal#3 Tiered Decision Tree Approach—August 27, 2008 3-11 Figure 3-2: Total Number of AER Facilities and Their Accumulative NG Usage FY 06—07 3-14 Figure B-1: Initial Staff Proposal—Proposed Tiered Approach —May 28, 2008 B-3 Figure B-2: Revised Staff Proposal#1 Tiered Decision Tree Approach—June 19, 2008 B-6 Figure B-3: Proposed Tiered Decision Tree Approach—July 30, 2008 B-10 Figure B-4: Revised Staff Proposal#3 Tiered Decision Tree Approach—August 27, 2008 B-13 APPENDIX A -Working Group Members and Contributors APPENDIX B— Summaries of Working Group Meetings TOC-2 October 2008 Page 1481 PREFACE This Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold document contains the proposed interim GHG significance threshold, rationale for developing the threshold, and details of the working group meetings and represents a work-in-progress of staff's efforts to date. This document will be updated as more information becomes available. For the staff recommendation to the Governing Board at the December 5, 2008 public hearing, please refer to Attachment A of Agenda Item Number 31. Finally, to facilitate identifying changes to this Guidance Document since its release in October 2008, added text is underlined and deleted text is denoted with ctrikethrough text. Page 1482 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Page 1483 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym/ Definition Abbreviation 1 AB 32 Assembly Bill 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AER Annual Emission Reporting AG Attorney General ARB Air Resources Board BACT Best Available Control Technology BARCT Best Available Retrofit Control Technology BAU Business as Usual CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARE California Air Resource Board CAT Climate Action Team CCAR California Climate Action Registry CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 Methane CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CPUC California Public Utilities Commission EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY Fiscal Year GHG Greenhouse Gas GGRP Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan GP General Plan GWP Global Warming Potential IGR Intergovernmental Review IPCC International Panel on Climate Change ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers km Kilometer LNG Liquefied Natural Gas MMBTU Million British Thermal Units MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MMT CO2e Million Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MW Megawatts N2O Nitrous Oxide ND Negative Declaration NOx Oxides of Nitrogen OPR State Office of Planning and Research PFC Perfluorocarbon Acronyms and Abbreviations- 1 October 2008 Page 1484 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (Concluded) Acronym/ Definition Abbreviation 1 PM Particulate Mater ROG Reactive Organic Gas RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05 SB Senate Bill SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SIP State Implementation Plan SOx Sulfur Oxides TAC Toxic Air Contaminants URBEMIS Urban Emissions Model VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled Acronyms and Abbreviations-2 October 2008 Page 1485 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Purpose of This Guidance Document California Environmental Quality Act and GHGs Legal Authority Contents of This Guidance Document Page 1486 Chapter 1—Introduction and Executive Summary INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies in California to analyze potential adverse impacts for proposed projects undertaken by a public agency, funded by a public agency, and requiring discretionary approval by a public agency. The fundamental purposes of CEQA are to inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the significant environmental effects of proposed activities, identify ways to avoid or significantly reduce environmental damage, use feasible alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid significant damage, and disclose to the public why a governmental agency approved a project if significant effects are involved (CEQA Guidelines §15002[a]). To disclose potential adverse impacts from a proposed project, pursuant to CEQA lead agencies typically prepare multidisciplinary environmental impact analysis and make decisions based on the analysis regarding the environmental effects of the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines §15002[a]). In the past, air quality analyses tended to focus on potential adverse impacts from criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Subsequent to the adoption of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 — The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, lead agencies have increasingly faced legal challenges to their CEQA documents for failure to analyze greenhouse gases (GHGs) or making a determination of significance regarding GHG emission impacts. Greenhouse gases are those gases that have the ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, a process that is analogous to the way a greenhouse traps heat. GHGs may be emitted as a result of human activities as well as through natural processes. As a result of human activities, such as electricity production, vehicle use, etc., GHGs have been accumulating in the earth's atmosphere at a faster rate than has occurred historically, i.e., prior to the Industrial Age starting approximately 150 years ago. Increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are leading to global climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provided the first unequivocal evidence that global climate temperatures are increasing (2007a). Further, the primary driver of global climate change is increased emissions of GHGs due to human activities. According to the IPCC, there is very high confidence, based on more evidence from a wider range of species, that recent warming is strongly affecting terrestrial, marine, freshwater biological systems. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG because it comprises the majority of total GHG emissions emitted per year and it is very long-lived in the atmosphere. Annual emissions of CO2 have increased approximately 80 percent between 1970 and 2004. In addition to CO2, other GHG pollutants emitted directly as a result of human activities include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20) and halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine or bromine). Without changes in current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable 1 - 1 October 2008 Page 1487 Chapter 1—Introduction and Executive Summary development practices, GHG emissions and global climate temperatures will continue to increase. To prevent or minimize further increases in global temperatures resulting from increases in GHG emissions due to human activities, it is necessary to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. Stabilizing GHGs in the atmosphere can only occur through reducing GHG emissions. Without further reductions in GHGs, increased global temperatures will surpass humans' and ecosystems' ability to adapt to these changing conditions (IPCC, 2007b). In response to the increasing body of evidence that GHGs will continue to affect global climate, Governor Schwarzenegger issued executive order (EO S-3-05), which established the following greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for California: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Subsequent to the Governor's issuance of EO S-3-05, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32 — The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. With the adoption of AB 32, the California State Legislature recognized the growing concern regarding changes to global climate resulting from increasing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). AB 32 establishes a cap on statewide greenhouse gas emissions and sets forth the regulatory framework to achieve the corresponding reduction in statewide emissions levels. Specifically, (AB 32) recognizes the serious threat to the "economic wellbeing, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California" that results from global warming. Consequently, AB 32 mandates a significant reduction in GHGs in order to contribute to efforts to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of GHGs. Under AB 32, greenhouse gases are defined as: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. In general, there is currently an absence of regulatory guidance with regard to analyzing GHG emission impacts in CEQA documents. Similarly, no public agency in California has formally adopted GHG significance thresholds. Recognizing the absence of guidance regarding analyzing and determining the significance of GHGs, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) prepared a White Paper reviewing policy choices, analytical tools, and mitigation strategies for GHGs. In particular, the White Paper identifies a number of options for establishing GHG significance thresholds, but makes no formal recommendation of one approach over another. Air districts typically act in an advisory capacity to local governments in establishing the framework for environmental review of air pollution impacts under CEQA. This may include recommendations regarding significance thresholds, analytical tools to estimate emissions and assess impacts, and mitigations for potentially significant impacts. Although districts will also address some of these issues on a project-specific basis as responsible agencies, they may provide general guidance to local governments on these issues. 1 -2 October 2008 Page 1488 Chapter 1—Introduction and Executive Summary Because of its expertise in establishing air quality analysis methodologies and comprehensive efforts to establish regional and localized significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, local public agencies have asked South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for guidance in quantifying GHG impacts and recommending GHG significance thresholds to assist them with determining whether or not GHG impacts in their CEQA documents are significant. As a result, SCAQMD staff has received requests from a number of public agencies and other stakeholders to provide guidance on analyzing GHG impacts and establishing a GHG significance threshold. In response to these requests from the various stakeholders, SCAQMD established a stakeholder working group to receive input on establishing a GHG significance threshold. In the meantime, SCAQMD staff has joined many other stakeholders urging CARB to establish a statewide threshold for GHGs. In the absence of a statewide threshold, SCAQMD staff will recommend its interim approach to the Governing Board for consideration and it will also become the SCAQMD's input to the statewide process. PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT The purpose of this Guidance Document, therefore, is to provide information on GHG legislation relative to CEQA, a brief summary of the Working Group process, development of the resulting staff-recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal, and how to use it. This Guidance Document also provides information on the SCAQMD's authority to establish a GHG significance threshold pursuant to CEQA and some background information on GHGs and global climate change. This Guidance Document also discusses future efforts to further refine the interim GHG significance threshold as necessary, includes recommendations for analyzing GHG impacts using current modeling tools, and describes measures to mitigate GHG emission impacts. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND GHGS California Attorney General's Office Subsequent to adopting AB 32, the California Attorney General's Office determined that GHG emissions contributing to global climate change also contribute to potential adverse environmental impacts that should be evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Attorney General's Office has submitted numerous comment letters to lead agencies on their CEQA documents for failure to analyze GHG emissions, failure to make a significance determination, and failure to implement feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. For example, the California Attorney General, on behalf of the people of California, filed a legal challenge against the County of San Bernardino for failure to analyze "reasonably foreseeable" GHG emissions in the CEQA document prepared for its 1 -3 October 2008 Page 1489 Chapter 1—Introduction and Executive Summary General Plan update. The County reached a settlement with the Attorney General by committing to developing a GHG inventory and a plan for reducing GHGs. Similarly, the California Attorney General submitted comments on the CEQA document for a refinery in northern California. Although GHG emissions were quantified, the Attorney General cited the failure of the lead agency to make a determination of significance relative to GHG emissions stating, "[E]ven if there is no established threshold in law or regulation, lead agencies are obligated by CEQA to determine significance. Neither CEQA, nor the regulations, authorize reliance on the lack of an agency-adopted standard as the basis for determining that a project's potential cumulative impact is not significant." In other words, the absence of a threshold does not in any way relieve lead agencies of their obligations to address GHG emissions from projects under CEQA. By not concluding whether or not a project is significant, the lead agency may be avoiding its responsibility to implement GHG mitigation measures. Senate Bill(SB) 97—CEQA: Greenhouse Gas Emissions In August 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 97 — CEQA: Greenhouse Gas Emissions stating, "This bill advances a coordinated policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by directing the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Resources Agency to develop CEQA guidelines on how state and local agencies should analyze, and when necessary, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions." Specifically, SB 97 requires OPR, by July 1, 2009, to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by CEQA, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. The Resources Agency would be required to certify and adopt those guidelines by January 1, 2010. OPR would be required to periodically update the guidelines to incorporate new information or criteria established by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. SB 97 also identifies a limited number of types of projects that would be exempt under CEQA from analyzing GHG emissions. Finally, the legislation will be repealed on January 1, 2010. Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory Consistent with SB 97, on June 19, 2008, OPR released its Technical Advisory on CEQA and Climate Change, which was developed in cooperation with the Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). According to OPR, the Technical Advisory offers the informal interim guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents, until CEQA guidelines are developed pursuant to SB 97 on how state and local agencies should analyze, and when necessary, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. According to OPR, lead agencies should determine whether greenhouse gases may be generated by a proposed project, and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by 1 -4 October 2008 Page 1490 Chapter 1—Introduction and Executive Summary type and source. Second, the lead agency must assess whether those emissions are individually or cumulatively significant. When assessing whether a project's effects on climate change are "cumulatively considerable" even though its GHG contribution may be individually limited, the lead agency must consider the impact of the project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Finally, if the lead agency determines that the GHG emissions from the project as proposed are potentially significant, it must investigate and implement ways to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate the impacts of those emissions. - SB 375 (Steinberg) Transportation, Land Use, and the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) On September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 375 (Steinberg). SB 375 focuses on housing and transportation planning decisions to reduce fossil fuel consumption and conserve farmlands and habitat. This legislation is important to achieving AB 32 goals because greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use, which includes transportation, are the single largest sector of emissions in California. Further, SB 375 provides a path for better planning by providing incentives to locate housing developments closer to where people work and go to school, allowing them to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) every year. The following bullet points summarize some of the main provisions of the bill. • Require the regional governing bodies in each of the state's major metropolitan areas to adopt, as part of their regional transportation plan, a "sustainable community strategy" that will meet the region's target for reducing GHG emissions. These strategies would get people out of their cars by promoting smart growth principles such as: development near public transit; projects that include a mix of residential and commercial use; and projects that include affordable housing to help reduce new housing developments in outlying areas with cheaper land and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). • Create incentives for implementing the sustainable community strategies by allocating federal transportation funds only to projects that are consistent with the emissions reductions. • Provide various forms of CEQA relief by allowing projects that are shown to conform to the preferred sustainable community strategy through the local general plans (and therefore contribute to GHG reduction) to have a more streamlined environmental review process. Specifically, SB 375 will change CEQA in two ways: > If a development is consistent with the sustainable community's strategy and incorporates any mitigation measures required by a prior EIR, then the environmental review does not have to consider: a) growth-inducing impacts, or b) project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars on global warming or the regional transportation network. 1 -5 October 2008 Page 1491 Chapter 1—Introduction and Executive Summary ➢ A narrowly-defined group of "transit priority projects" will be exempt from CEQA review. LEGAL AUTHORITY CEQA Guidelines §15022(a) states that a public agency shall adopt objectives, criteria, and specific procedures consistent with CEQA and these [State] Guidelines for administering its responsibilities under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines §15022(d) states further, "In adopting procedures to implement CEQA, a public agency may adopt the State CEQA Guidelines through incorporation by reference. The agency may then adopt only those specific procedures or provisions described in subsection [15022] (a) which are necessary to tailor the general provisions of the guidelines to the specific operations of the agency." At the December 11, 1998 Public Hearing the SCAQMD's Governing Board formally incorporated by reference the State CEQA Guidelines as the implementing guidelines for the SCAQMD's CEQA program. Adopting GHG significance thresholds would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15022 provision to tailor a public agency's implementing guidelines by adopting criteria relative to the specific operations of the SCAQMD. Specifically with regard to thresholds of significance, CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(a) states, "Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects." Subsection (b) of the same section states further, "Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence." Staff's recommended GHG significance threshold has undergone a public review process as part of stakeholder working group meetings that are open to the public. This Guidance Document provides the substantial evidence relative to the methodology for developing the interim GHG significance threshold. After completion of the public process, the proposed interim GHG significance threshold will be brought to the SCAQMD's Governing Board at a public meeting, where it will be considered for adoption by resolution, consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(b). Staffs proposed interim GHG significance threshold is a recommendation only for lead agencies and not a mandatory requirement. The GHG significance threshold may be used at the discretion of the local lead agency. However, if adopted the SCAQMD will use the interim GHG significance threshold for projects where it is the lead agency. -Considerations When Establishing Significance Thresholds No significance thresholds for GHG emissions have been developed, adopted, or endorsed statewide or at the local level'. Air districts have primary authority under 1 In response to comments submitted by the Attorney General's Office on a dairy project,the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District(SJVAPCD)identified a significance threshold of 38,477 metric tons of 1 -6 October 2008 Page 1492 Chapter 1—Introduction and Executive Summary state law for "control of air pollution from all sources, other than emissions from motor vehicles" (H&SC §40000). The term air contaminant or "air pollutant" is defined extremely broadly, to mean "any discharge, release, or other propagation into the atmosphere" and includes, but is not limited to, soot, carbon, fumes, gases, particulate matter, etc. Greenhouse gases and other global warming pollutants such as black carbon would certainly be included in this definition. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA 549 U.S. 497 (2009) that greenhouse gases were clearly within the Federal Clean Air Act's broad definition of air pollutants. Therefore, air districts have the authority to regulate global warming pollutants primarily from non- vehicular sources, while pursuant to AB 32 CARB has authority over a wide range of sources, including vehicular sources. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of suggested environmental topics that should be addressed in a CEQA document. Questions under each environmental topic area are designed to elicit information on whether a project has the potential to generate significant adverse environmental impacts to that environmental topic area. However, neither the CEQA statutes nor the implementing Guidelines discuss or identify thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for performing an impact analysis. These tasks are left to a lead agency's judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from regulatory agencies and other sources where available and applicable. The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area (CEQA Guidelines §15064(b)). Further, in evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project (§15064(d)). Significance conclusions must be based on substantial evidence, which includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines §15064(0(5)). Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is essentially a regulatory standard or set of criteria that represent the level at which a lead agency finds a particular environmental effect of a project to be significant. Specifically, a threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non- compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant carbon dioxide equivalent per year(MT CO2eq./yr). According to SJVAPCD staff,the agency currently has no plans to formally adopt this significance threshold through a public process. 1 -7 October 2008 Page 1493 Chapter 1—Introduction and Executive Summary by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant(§15064.7(a)). Even in the absence of clearly defined significance thresholds for GHG emissions, the California Attorney General has advised that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact. CONTENTS OF THIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT The following subsections provide brief summaries of the chapters contained in this guidance document. Summaries of Chapter 1 Chapter 1 is the introductory chapter of this document that contains general background information on GHGs and the determination that GHGs must be analyzed in CEQA documents. There is also information on CEQA legislation related to GHGs and global climate change. Finally, the chapter contains information on the legal authority that allows the SCAQMD to adopt significance thresholds for the purpose of determining the severity of impacts analyzed in CEQA documents Summaries of Chapter 2 Chapter 2 contains more detailed background information on GHG emissions relative to global climate change, both internationally and nationally. This chapter also provides more detailed information on legislation to reduce GHG house gas emissions, e.g., Assembly Bill 32 — the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, etc. Finally, Chapter 2 contains information on early guidance on evaluating GHG emissions in CEQA documents. Summaries of Chapter 3 Chapter 3 contains information on the working group established by the SCAQMD to provide feedback to staff on the development of an interim GHG significance threshold. The chapter also includes discussions on considerations in establishing an interim GHG significance threshold and describes the current staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold. Summaries of Chapter 4 Chapter 4 contains general recommendations for analyzing GHG emissions in CEQA documents. 1 -8 October 2008 Page 1494 Chapter 1—Introduction and Executive Summary Summaries of Chapter 5 In Chapter 5 it is assumed that the SCAQMD Governing Board will adopt staff's proposed interim GHG significance threshold. Therefore, this chapter discusses future action items, including outreach to interested stakeholders, compiling lists of applicable GHG design features and mitigation measures, and periodic review and update, as necessary of the interim GHG significance threshold. 1 -9 October 2008 Page 1495 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON GHGS General Background Information Legislative Background— California Initial Guidance on Evaluating GHGs Pursuant to CEQA Page 1496 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON GHGS _Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change In the last few years information and data have been compiled that demonstrate unequivocally that increases in average global air and ocean temperatures are occurring (IPCC, 2007a). For example, 11 of the last 12 years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Further, increases in sea level are consistent with global warming. For example, global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. According to the IPCC (2007b), there is very high confidence, based on more evidence from a wider range of species, that recent warming is strongly affecting terrestrial, marine, and freshwater biological systems. One of the major drivers in global climate change has been directly linked to the increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to human activities worldwide (Figure 2-1). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Annual CO2 emissions have increased approximately 80 percent between 1970 and 2004 (IPCC, 2007b) Figure 2-1 Global Anthropogenic GHG Emissions N F-gases 60 a) b) 7,9% 1.1% CH, 50 49.0 14.3% 44.7 39.4 co fossil 40 fuel use 35.6 co 56.6% (deforestation, at so_ 28.7 decay of . biomass,etc) 17.3% CO,(other) 20- 2.8% Waste an2dB wastewater C) Forestry - Energy Supply 10 1 7.4% 25.9% 0 Agriculture 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 13.5% Transport 13.1% ' ®CO2 from fossil fuel use and other sources ❑CO2 from deforestation,decay and peat Industry Residential and 111 CH4 from agriculture,waste and energy N20 from agriculture and others 0 F-gases 19.4% commercial buildings 7,9% Source — IPCC, 2007b: (a) Global annual emissions of anthropogenic GHGs from 1970 to 2004.5 (b) Share of different anthropogenic GHGs in total emissions in 2004 in terms of CO2-eq. (c) Share of different sectors in total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 in terms of CO2-eq. (Forestry includes deforestation.) {WGIII Figures TS.la,TS.Ib,TS.2b} Human activities have been responsible for substantial increases in four long-lived GHGs, including: CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20) and halocarbons (a group of gases 2- 1 October 2008 Page 1497 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs containing fluorine, chlorine or bromine). Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increase in N20 concentration is primarily due to agriculture (IPCC, 2007). According to the IPCC (2007), for the next couple of decades global temperatures are expected to rise approximately 0.2° C per decade under a variety of scenarios. Further, global temperatures are expected to continue for centuries as a result of human activities due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations are stabilized. As a result, based on the current understanding of climate- carbon feedback, model studies show that substantial GHG emission reductions are necessary to avoid substantial increases in global air and ocean temperatures. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND - CALIFORNIA California has taken a leadership role in not only recognizing the future impacts to global climate change from anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions, but in establishing policies and adopting laws to substantially reduce GHG emissions by 2050. In addition to the GHG legislation related to CEQA described in Chapter 1, California has adopted the following policies and laws that specifically address reducing GHG emissions. Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order (June 2005) In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which establishes greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in response to projected increases in global air and ocean temperatures. Specifically, EO S-3-05 establishes the following three GHG emission reduction targets: • Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 emission levels by 2010; • Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 emission levels by 2020; and • Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Further, EO S-3-05 charges the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) secretary to coordinate with the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture, Secretary of the Resources Agency, Chairperson of the CARB, Chairperson of the Energy Commission and President of the Public Utilities Commission to develop a Climate Action Plan. EO S-3-05 also charges the Secretary of CalEPA with the oversight of efforts to meet the above GHG emission reduction targets and the responsibility to prepare biannual reports on progress in meeting the GHG emission reduction targets. 2-2 October 2008 Page 1498 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill (AB) 32) The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) was adopted by the California State Legislature in 2006. AB 32 assigns CARB the responsibilities of monitoring and reducing GHG emissions. Specifically, AB 32 requires CARB to: • Establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions, by January 1, 2008; • Adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of greenhouse gases by January 1, 2009; • Adopt a plan by January 1, 2009, indicating how emission reductions will be achieved from significant greenhouse gas sources via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions; • Adopt regulations by January 1, 2011, to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas, including provisions for using both market mechanisms and alternative compliance mechanisms; • Convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to advise CARB; • Ensure public notice and opportunity for comment for all CARB actions; • To adopt rules for"sources" including non-vehicular; and • Prior to imposing any mandates or authorizing market mechanisms, CARB must evaluate several factors, including but not limited to impacts on California's economy, the environment and public health; equity between regulated entities; electricity reliability; conformance with other environmental laws, and must ensure that the rules do not disproportionately impact low-income communities. According to the schedule of milestones laid out in AB 32, CARB has made progress in the following areas. Consistent with AB 32's requirement to establish a GHG emission inventory, in December 2007 CARB adopted the California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. The Inventory accounts for all GHG emissions within the state of California and supports the AB 32 Climate Change Program. Figure 2-2 shows CARB's inventory for the year 2004. The Inventory also serves as the basis for developing future year GHG emission forecasts necessary to support measure development and Scoping Plan recommendations. ARB staff has developed a year 2020 "business-as-usual" (BAU) forecast of GHG emissions for use in developing the Draft Scoping Plan. Figure 2-3 shows CARB's inventory for the year 2020, which is AB 32's target inventory. 2-3 October 2008 Page 1499 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs Figure 2-2 2004 GHG Emissions by Sector(Gross Emissions: 484.4 MMT CO2eq.) Transportation 3$°6 Residential 6% Commercial 3% Electricity Generation (In-State) 12% Industrial 20% Electricity Generation (Imports) 13% Agriculture 6% Source: CARB,2007 Figure 2-3 1990 GHG Emissions by Sector(Gross Emissions: 433.3 MMT CO2eq.) Transportation 35% Residential 7% Commercial 3% Electricity Generation (In-State) 11% Industrial 24% Electricity Generation (Imports) 14% Agriculture 5% Source: CARB,2007 2-4 October 2008 Page 1500 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs On December 6, 2007, the Air Resources Board (ARB) approved a regulation for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from major sources, pursuant to AB 32. The mandatory reporting regulation specifies the types of facilities that must report their GHG emissions, requirements for reporting and estimating the GHG emissions, and requirements for emissions verification. Upon adoption, the CARB Board directed staff to make other conforming modifications, as may be appropriate, based on comments received. Subsequent to adoption, the mandatory reporting regulation has undergone two sets of modifications. Consistent with the requirement to develop a scoping plan indicating how GHG emission reductions will be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions, the Draft Scoping Plan was released for public review and comment on June 26, 2008, followed by workshops in July and August, 2008. The Draft Scoping Plan calls for achievable GHG emission reduction in California's carbon footprint to 1990 levels. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30 percent from BAU emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today's levels. Key elements of CARB's preliminary recommendation for reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 contained in the Draft Scoping Plan include the following: • Expansion and strengthening of existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards; • Expansion of the Renewables Portfolio Standard for electricity generation to 33 percent; • Development of a California cap-and-trade program that links with other WCI Partner programs to create a regional market system; • Implementation of existing State laws and policies, including California's clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and • Targeted fees to fund the State's long-term commitment to AB 32 administration. The Scoping Plan is expected go to the CARE Board for adoption in November, 2008. INITIAL GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING GHGS PURSUANT TO CEQA As noted in Chapter 1, both the California Attorney General's Office and the OPR determined that GHG emissions contributing to global climate change have the potential to generate adverse environmental impacts that should be evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Until recently, however, there has been little or no guidance relative to analyzing GHG emissions in CEQA documents or determining significance. The first explicit guidance was provided by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) in its White Paper on Global Climate Change (AEP, 2007) and the White Paper on CEQA and Climate Change prepared by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA, 2008). The content of each of these White Papers is summarized in the following subsections. 2-5 October 2008 Page 1501 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs Association of Environmental Professionals—White Paper on Global Climate Change AEP's White Paper (AEP) was one of the first attempts to discuss GHGs in the context of CEQA. The intent of the White Paper was to provide practical, interim information to CEQA practitioners and to help Lead Agencies determine how to address GHGs and global climate change in CEQA documents prior to the development and adoption of guidance by appropriate government agencies. Further, AEP's White Paper provided a summary of the current regulatory environment surrounding GHG emissions, and the various approaches that a Lead Agency may select in a CEQA document to address the potential impacts of global climate change and a project's cumulative contribution to GHG. The White Paper described several approaches for addressing GHGs and global Climate Change in CEQA documents, but did not recommend a single approach or methodology, leaving that decision to local Lead Agencies. The AEP White Paper identified eight approaches for analyzing GHGs and global climate change, which are summarized in the following bullet points. • Approach 1 —No Analysis: under this approach the Lead Agency would not mention or discuss GHGs or global climate change. • Approach 2 — Screening Analysis: under this approach the Lead Agency would establish a process to screen projects and determine that they would not make significant contributions to GHG emissions or GCC and, therefore, would not need to mitigate accordingly. • Approach 3 — Qualitative Analysis without Significance Determination: this approach involves a qualitative discussion of GHGs and global climate change and potential ways the project will contribute to the generation of GHG emissions, but does not provide any significance conclusions. • Approach 4 — Qualitative Analysis with Significance Determination: under this approach the Lead Agency would qualitatively discuss GHGs and climate change impacts and conclude that the project impacts are significant. • Approach 5 — Quantitative Analysis without Significance Determination: under this approach the Lead Agency would quantify GHG emissions from the proposed project, but the results are not compared to a quantitative significance threshold. • Approach 6—Quantitative Analysis with Net Zero Threshold: this approach involves quantifying GHG emissions and using zero net carbon dioxide equivalent increase as the threshold. • Approach 7 — Quantitative Analysis Relative to California GHG Emission Reduction Strategies: this approach employs both quantitative and qualitative components. The quantitative analysis contains an inventory of project GHG emissions. The qualitative component involves project compliance with the emission reduction strategies contained in the California Climate Action Team's (CAT) Report to the Governor, which contains recommendations and strategies to help ensure the targets in Executive Order S-3-05 are met. • Approach 8 — Use of Partial Exemption, "Within the Scope" of a Program EIR, or Tiering: this option relies on the preparation of a broad EIR on a plan, program, or zoning action that is certified and contains a cumulative GHG and global climate change 2-6 October 2008 Page 1502 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs impact analysis and mitigation. A later project that is consistent with the actions, goals, and/or policies in that plan, program, or zoning action need not again evaluate the cumulative impact regarding the project's GHG contribution to global climate change. In this situation, the later project may use the "partial exemption" provision of Public Resources Code §21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines §15183. Since the date that the AEP White Paper was finalized (June, 2007), it has become clear that any of the above eight options that do not include quantification of GHG emissions and a determination of significance would be vulnerable to legal challenge. In addition, with the exception of the net zero approach in option 6, none of the options evaluated identify potential GHG significance thresholds. Approaches to developing GHG significance thresholds were specifically addressed in CAPCOA's White Paper(CAPCOA, 2008). -California Air Pollution Control Officers Association—White Paper: CEQA and Climate Change The intent of CAPCOA's White Paper is to serve as a resource for public agencies as they establish procedures for reviewing GHG emissions from projects under CEQA. It considers the application of thresholds and offers three alternative programmatic approaches toward determining whether GHG emissions are significant. Although the White Paper considers an option of not establishing a GHG significance threshold, as already noted this option is not considered to be a viable approach and will not be considered further. Ultimately, the White Paper is intended to provide consistent approaches for public agencies to ensure that GHG emissions are appropriately considered and addressed under CEQA. The CAPCOA White Paper identifies three programmatic approaches to establishing GHG significance thresholds and also discusses the benefits and problems associated with each approach. Each approach has inherent advantages and disadvantages. The three basic approaches are: • No significance threshold for GHG emissions (not discussed further); • GHG emissions threshold set at zero; or • GHG threshold set at a non-zero level, two approaches. The following subsections briefly summarize two of the three major programmatic approaches developed by CAPCOA. -Zero Threshold An air district or lead agency may determine that any degree of project-related increase in GHG emissions would contribute considerably to climate change which, therefore, would be considered a significant impact. As a result, the air district or lead agency could adopt a zero-emission GHG threshold. If the zero threshold option is chosen, the lead agency would be required to quantify and mitigate GHG emissions for all projects subject to CEQA, regardless of the size of the project or the availability of GHG reduction measures available to reduce the project's emissions. Projects that could not meet the zero-emission threshold would be required to undergo an environmental impact report (EIR) CEQA process to disclose the unmitigable significant impact, and develop the justification for a statement of overriding consideration to be adopted by the lead agency. 2-7 October 2008 Page 1503 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs CAPCOA notes in the White Paper that if an air district or lead agency elects to adopt a zero threshold approach, it should consider the administrative costs and the environmental review system capacity. Some projects that previously would have qualified for an exemption could require further substantial analysis, including preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an EIR. Moreover, the trade-offs between the volume of projects requiring review and the quality of consideration given to reviews should be considered. It may also be useful to consider whether meaningful mitigation can be achieved from smaller projects. Approach 1:Non-Zero Threshold—Statute and Executive Order Approach According to CAPCOA, a non-zero GHG significance threshold could minimize the resources spent reviewing environmental analyses that do not result in real GHG reductions or to prevent the environmental review system from being overwhelmed. The practical advantages of considering non-zero thresholds for GHG significance determinations can fit into the concept regarding whether the project's GHG emissions represent a "considerable contribution to the cumulative impact" and therefore warrant analysis. The first non-zero GHG significance threshold approach is based on achieving the objectives of AB 32 or executive order EO S-3-05 and explores four possible options under this scenario. A project would be required to meet the target objectives, or reduce GHG emissions to the target objectives, to be considered less than significant. The options under this approach are variations of ways to achieve the 2020 goals of AB 32 from new development, which is estimated to be about a 30 percent reduction from business-as-usual. Table 2-1 summarizes the four statute and executive order approaches identified by CAPCOA. SCAQMD staff has identified and included in Table 2-1 potential pros and cons identified for each option. Approach 2:Non-Zero Threshold—Tiered Threshold Options The second non-zero GHG significance threshold approach is comprised of a number of tiered GHG significance threshold options. Within this option, the CAPCOA White Paper discusses seven variations. The tiered threshold options offer both quantitative and qualitative approaches to setting a threshold, as well as different metrics for establishing the various tiers. Variations range from setting the first tier at zero to second tiers set at defined emission levels or based on the size of a project. This approach would then prescribe a set of GHG mitigation strategies that would have to be incorporated into the project in order for the project to be considered less than significant. CAPCOA notes that some applications of the tiered threshold approach may require inclusion in a General Plan or adoption of enabling regulations or ordinances to render them fully effective and enforceable. The various tiered threshold options are summarized in Table 2-2. SCAQMD staff has identified and included in Table 2-2 potential pros and cons identified for each option. 2-8 October 2008 Page 1504 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs Table 2— 1 Statute and Executive Order Approach Threshold Description of Threshold Pros* Cons* Number 1.1 Project must reduce emissions compared to • Could reduce resource • Could be viewed as business as usual to be less than significant, impacts compared to zero setting a de minimis level two approaches: threshold, as not every • Fewer projects would project would require an a. Project must reduce GHG emissions 33 trigger significance, thus, EIR less mitigation percent compared to business-as-usual Would achieve GHG • BAU should be defined (BAU) (2020 target), orby CARB b. Project must reduce GHG emissions 80 reductions consistent with AB 32 • BAU may be difficult to percent compared to business-as-usual define for all projects (2050 target). • A single threshold is easier to apply and understand 1.2 All new projects must reduce GHG emissions • Same as 1.1 • Could produce compared to BAU by a uniform percentage to • May produce greater substantially greater GHG be considered less than significant, e.g., 50 percent reduction of GHGs reductions than 1.1, but percent. • Single threshold easier to may be difficult to apply&understand achieve • BAU should be defined by CARB • BAU may be difficult to define for all projects *Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff's evaluation of the approaches. CD 01 cn -9 October 2008 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs Table 2— 1 (Concluded) Statute and Executive Order Approach Threshold Description of Threshold Pros* Cons* Number 1.3 Projects must reduce GHG emissions • Sector-specific approach • Requires extensive compared to business-as-usual by a uniform may be more appropriate information on emission percentage based on economic sector to be less approach inventories than significant, i.e., different reductions • Would take into account • Requires extensive required for different market sectors. costs & available control information on control technologies technologies • Avoids over- or under- • Difficult to determine regulation of GHGs per percent reduction by sector sector • Because of information requirements, may be more viable in the long term 1.4 Uniform GHG emission reduction by region. • Could tailor GHG • Would need to establish Regional GHG reduction plan developed reductions to specific GHG regions consistent with AB32 emission reductions, e.g., regional needs • Requires extensive reduce GHG emissions 33% or 80% compared • GHG reduction strategies information on regional to BAU. A project is not significant if its GHG could be integrated into emission inventories emissions are consistent with plan. regional plans • Because of the need to develop a regional plan, may be a more viable interim approach *Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff's evaluation of the approaches. CD 01 rn 2 - 10 October 2008 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs Table 2 —2 Tiered Threshold Options Threshold Description of Threshold Pros* Cons* Number 2.1 This threshold employs a decision tree • Tiered approach allows • Tier 1 may increase approach. Tier 1, no increase in GHG flexibility by establishing administrative burdens & emissions, not significant (zero threshold). If multiple thresholds to costs GHG emissions greater than zero, tier two, use cover a wide range of • There may not be one of the following threshold options. projects meaningful mitigation for • Tier 2 may minimize small projects administrative burden& • Available mitigation may costs consist of purchasing • Tiers could be set at offsets different levels depending • EJ concerns of purchasing on GHGs, size & other offsets because of project characteristics associated criteria • Projects exceeding tier 2 pollutant emissions must implement mitigation • Offset markets not well established 2.2 Establish a quantitative threshold based on • Would capture a larger • Would increase capturing a percentage, e.g., 90%, of future percentage of projects in administrative & cost discretionary projects, CAPCOA's threshold is the district than is burden, especially in 900 metric tons CO2eq per year(equivalent to currently the case developing&moderate 50 houses or 30,000 square feet of commercial • Would exclude small growth areas space, i.e., CAPCOA assumes 90% of all projects from further GHG • May not be amenable to projects are this size or greater). Projects less analysis industrial projects because than this would not be significant. • Single threshold easier to of the diversity of these - apply&understand projects • There may not be meaningful mitigation for small projects *Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff's evaluation of the approaches. 2 - 1 1 October 2008 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs Table 2—2 (Continued) Tiered Threshold Options Threshold Description of Threshold Pros* Cons* Number 2.3 This threshold is based on CARB's proposed • CARB estimates this • May not be amenable to mandatory reporting threshold of 25,000 metric threshold would capture 90 industrial projects because tons of CO2eq per year. Alternatively, use the % of all industrial projects of the diversity of these Market Advisory Committee of 10,000 metric • Single threshold easier to projects tons of CO2eq per year. Projects less than apply&understand • There may not be either would not be significant. meaningful mitigation for small projects 2.4 This approach establishes a GHG threshold • Single threshold easier to • Threshold cumbersome to based on and analogous to a NOx/VOC criteria apply&understand derive pollutant CEQA significance threshold and is • Threshold would change established using the following four steps: periodically as inventory a. Define NOx/VOC CEQA thresholds in goes up or down tons per year(e.g., 10 t/yr) • Could have widely divergent thresholds by air b. Define the regional NOx/VOC basin because of varying inventory in tons per year(e.g., annual NOx inventories inventory for 2005 from 2007AQMP 375,585 t/yr) c. Calculate percentage of NOx/VOC inventory the significance threshold represents (10/375,585 = 0.00003)to obtain"minimum percentage of regulated inventory" for NOx/VOC. CD *Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff's evaluation of the approaches. w 2 - 12 October 2008 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs Table 2—2 (Continued) Tiered Threshold Options Threshold Description of Threshold Pros* Cons* Number 2.4 d. Define California GHG emission • • (Cont.) inventory for 2004 in tons CO2eq per year (499 MMT CO2eq). Apply minimum percentage of regulated inventory to California GHG inventory for 2004 to develop a GHG threshold analogous to the CEQA Threshold (e.g., 0.00003 x 499 MMT= 14,970 metric tons CO2eq per year= significance threshold). 5 Establish quantitative unit-based thresholds • Would capture a larger • Would increase 7. based on capturing a percentage, e.g., 90%, of percentage of projects in administrative & cost future discretionary projects in specific market the district than is burden, especially in sectors (similar to 2.2 above). CAPCOA currently the case developing &moderate examples include: • Would exclude small growth areas • 30,000 square-foot(SF) office=800 metric projects from further GHG • May not be amenable to tons CO2eq per year; analysis industrial projects because • 30,000 SF retail=2,500 metric tons CO2eq • Single threshold easier to of the diversity of these per year; apply&understand projects • 30,000 SF supermarket=43,000 metric • There may not be tons CO2eq per year. meaningful mitigation for small projects *Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff's evaluation of the approaches. CD 01 2 co - 13 October 2008 Chapter 2—Background Information on GHGs Table 2—2 (Concluded) Tiered Threshold Options Threshold Description of Threshold Pros* Cons* Number 2.6 This threshold would include tiered CEQA • Could capture up to 50% • May capture substantially thresholds based on CEQA's definition of of all future commercial less than 50% if future "projects with statewide, regional or areawide development development, resulting less significance (§15206(b)), which include: GHG mitigation • Residential development> 500 dwellings • Percentage capture of • Shopping center or business establishment industrial/manufacturing employing> 1,000 persons or> 500,000 projects currently SF unknown • Commercial office building employing >1,000 persons or>250,000 SF • Hotel/motel> 500 rooms • Industrial, manufacturing or processing plant or industrial park employing> 1,000 persons or> 600,000 SF 2 Efficiency-based thresholds would be based on • Would benchmark GHG • Would require substantial measurements of efficiency compared to intensity against target data&possibly modeling intensity. Must be based on reasonable GHG levels of efficiency • May be more appropriate emissions compared to business-as-usual. • Thresholds established to as a threshold in the long provide future foreseeable term GHG reductions compared to BAU • Would support AB 32 target objectives *Pros and cons reflect only SCAQMD staff's evaluation of the approaches. 01 2 - 14 October 2008 CHAPTER 3 INTERIM GHG SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD STAFF PROPOSAL Introduction GHG Analysis Considerations Current Staff Interim GHG Significance Threshold Proposals Page 1511 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal INTRODUCTION Because GHG emissions affect global climate, some have argued that it may be more appropriate for national or state agencies to establish significance thresholds or GHG emission reduction target objectives. However, no agency has established GHG significance thresholds that could assist Lead Agencies with determining the significance of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. In the absence of statewide guidance on this issue and in response to requests from a variety of stakeholders, the SCAQMD established a GHG Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group (Working Group) to establish an interim GHG significance threshold until such time as the state establishes a GHG significance threshold or provides recommended guidance on establishing a GHG significance threshold. Staff's goal is to reach consensus regarding an interim GHG significance threshold to the extent possible and take the staff proposal to the SCAQMD Governing for consideration and approval. The Working Group was formed to assist staffs efforts to develop an interim GHG significance threshold an is comprised of a wide variety of stakeholders including: state agencies, OPR, CARB, and the Attorney General's Office; local agencies, city and county planning departments, utilities such as sanitation and power, etc.; regulated stakeholders, industry and industry groups; and organizations, both environmental and professional. Stakeholders were chosen based on their participation in other related stakeholder working groups and their expressed interest in participating in the developing a GHG significance threshold. Working group meetings are open to the public and have been well attended. The members of the Working Group and other interested parties who have requested to be notified of the meetings are listed in Appendix A. Information on the progress of the Working Group, including agendas, overhead presentations, and letters received from the various stakeholders can be found at the following website: https://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/GHG.html. Part of the purpose of the Working Group is to provide a forum to solicit comments and suggestions from the various stakeholders to assist SCAQMD staff with developing an interim GHG significance threshold that is consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds, is supported by substantial evidence, and provides guidance to CEQA practitioners with regard to determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant. SCAQMD staff held the first Working Group meeting in April 2008. Except for September, Working Group meetings have been held on a monthly basis since April. Brief summaries of each Working Group meeting and the topics and staff GHG significance threshold proposals discussed to date are provided in Appendix B. Staff s initial proposed has been modified over time based on comments and concerns raised at Working Group meetings or in written comments. The following sections summarize staffs latest recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal and some of the concepts necessary to understanding the various components of staff s 3 - 1 October 2008 Page 1512 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal proposal. The latest staff proposal is considered to be a work-in-progress as staff is continuing to solicit further public input and suggestions. The following subsections briefly summarize the GHG significance threshold design criteria concepts included as part of staff's proposed interim GHG significance threshold proposal. Following the discussion of design concepts, SCAQMD staff's current interim proposal is described. GHG ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS Before discussing quantification methodologies, it is necessary to consider design criteria that establish the parameters upon which the actual GHG analysis is based. The following subsections include discussions from the Working Group of some of the most important design criteria to be considered when quantifying GHG emissions. The following topics include some of the most important parameters that should be considered when quantifying GHG emissions and, therefore, should not be considered an exhaustive list of considerations as individual projects may include characteristics that may require additional considerations. Policy Objective The overarching policy objective with regard to establishing a GHG significance threshold for the purposes of analyzing GHG impacts pursuant to CEQA is to establish a performance standard or target GHG reduction objective that will ultimate contribute to reducing GHG emissions to stabilize climate change. Full implementation of the Governor's Executive Order S-3-05 would reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels or 90 percent below current levels by 2050. It is anticipated that achieving the Executive Order's objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap GHG concentrations at 450 ppm, thus, stabilizing global climate. As described below, staffs recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal uses a tiered approach to determining significance. Tier 3, which is expected to be the primary tier by which the AQMD will determine significance for projects where it is the lead agency, uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. Specifically, the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is base on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact. Therefore, the policy objective of staffs recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal is to achieve an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or modified stationary source projects. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change. Further, a 90 percent emission 3 -2 October 2008 Page 1513 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2eq/yr). In addition, these small projects would be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory GHG Pollutants Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in December 1997, is an agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by specified percentages, depending on the country, compared to 1990 levels. The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons, averaged over the period of 2008-2012. Similarly, AB 32 defines GHGs as including the following: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (Health and Safety Code, section 38505(g)). The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide. Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are: • Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. • Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. • Nitrous Oxide (N20): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. 3 -3 October 2008 Page 1514 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal • Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). Fluorinated gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as high global warming potential gases (high GWP gases). > Hydrofluorocarbons are manmade chemicals that have historically replaced Chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigeration and semiconductor manufacturing. > Perfluorocarbons are manmade chemicals that are by-products of aluminum smelting and uranium enrichment. > Sulfur hexafluoride is a manmade chemical that is largely used in heavy industry to insulate high voltage equipment and to assist in the manufacturing of cable cooling systems. GWP is a measure of how much a given mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming. It is a relative scale that compares the gas in question to the same mass of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is by definition 1). A GWP is calculated over a specific time interval and the value of this must be stated whenever a GWP is quoted or else the value is meaningless. A substance's GWP depends on the time span over which the potential is calculated. A gas which is quickly removed from the atmosphere may initially have a large effect but for longer time periods as it has been removed becomes less important. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, especially an analysis of operation emissions, the maximum GWP is typically used, regardless of the actual atmospheric lifetime. This approach simplifies the analysis and provides a very conservative analysis, especially for the fluorinated gases. The GWP of the six Kyoto GHGs is shown in Table 3-1. The SCAQMD staff recommends that a GHG analysis include the six Kyoto GHGs, to the extent emission factors are available primarily because there is more information on these GHGs than other potential GHGs. Other GHGs would be added to the list as scientific information becomes available and agreed to by national or international protocols and agreements. Table 3-1 Global Warming Potential of Kyoto GHGs Gas Atmospheric Lifetime GWP Carbon dioxide (CO2) 50—200 1 Methane (CH4) 12 + 3 21 Nitrous oxide (N20) 120 310 HFC-23 (Hydrofluorocarbons) 264 11,700 HFC-32 5.6 650 3 -4 October 2008 Page 1515 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal Table 3-1 (Concluded) Global Warming Potential of Kyoto GHGs Gas Atmospheric Lifetime GWP HFC-125 32.6 2,800 HFC-134a 14.6 1,300 HFC-143a 48.3 3,800 HFC-152a 1.5 140 HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900 HFC-236fa 209 6,300 HFC-4310mee 17.1 1,300 CF4 (Perfluorocarbons) 50,000 6,500 C2F6 10,000 9,200 C4F 10 2,600 7,000 C6F14 3,200 7,400 Sulfer hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 Source:U.S.EPA(http://www.epa.gov/) Carbon black, a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel exhaust, may also have a warming effect in the atmosphere. It is estimated that carbon black's contribution to climate change is second only to carbon dioxide. Carbon black contributes to global warming by absorbing heat while airborne in the atmosphere. Carbon black is of particular concern in the arctic because it settles on ice and snow, reducing its reflectivity and increasing the rate of melting. Based on a survey of available information, there are little data available for calculating carbon black effects on global warming. As a result, SCAQMD staff is not recommending analyzing carbon black effects on global warming. As information becomes available, staff will reconsider adding carbon black to the list of GHGs to be analyzed in CEQA documents. -Business-As-Usual(BAU) In CARB's Scoping Plan (CARB, 2008) CARB states that the BAU case is a representation of what the state of the California economy will be in the year 2020 assuming that none of the measures recommended in the Scoping Plan are implemented. CARB's projected BAU GHG emissions in 2020 are shown in Table 3- 2. 3 -5 October 2008 Page 1516 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal Table 3-2 2002-2004 Average Emissions and 2020 Projected Emissions (Business-as-Usual) (MMTCO2E) Sector 2002-2004 Average Projected 2020 Emissions Emissions [BAU] Transportation 179.3 225.4 Electricity 109.0 139.2 Commercial and Residential 41.0 46.7 Industry 95.9 100.5 Recycling and Waste 5.6 7.7 High GWP 14.8 46.9 Agriculture 27.7 29.8 Forest Net Emissions - 4.7 0.0 Emissions Total 469 596 Source: CARB,2008—Scoping Plan,Table 1 CARB's Scoping Plan states further that continuing increases in global greenhouse gas emissions at BAU rates would result, by late in the century, in California losing 90 percent of the Sierra snow pack, sea level rising by more than 20 inches, and a three to four times increase in heat wave days, flood damage, etc. To avoid future foreseeable environmental impacts to California, the Scoping plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California's carbon footprint. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means reducing approximately 30 percent from BAU emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today's levels. On a per- capita basis, that means reducing our annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020. Although CARB's Scoping Plan calls for reducing GHG emissions 30 percent from BAU levels, it does not explicitly define BAU. There is, however, a brief definition of BAU in CARB's GHG inventory document (CARB, 2007). In that document CARB describes BAU as: • BAU is based on GHG emissions estimates in the absence of policies and reduction measures, and • BAU is based on forecasted demographic and economic growth. In its White Paper, CAPCOA provides a more detailed definition of BAU compared to the above definition in CARB's inventory document. In the White Paper BAU is defined as follows: • The projection of GHGs into the future based on current technologies and regulations; 3 -6 October 2008 Page 1517 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal • The adoption of new GHG reduction regulations, e.g., CARB's Scoping Plan measures, in the future establishes new BAU, i.e., the definition of BAU evolves over time; and • BAU will normally define the CEQA no project alternative, but does not necessarily form the project baseline. Based on the above definitions and discussions from the Working Group, SCAQMD staff defines BAU as the following • Is used to project project's future emissions (consistent with CAPCOA and CARB definitions), i.e., level from which GHG reductions must occur; • Is based first and foremost on current regulatory requirements (consistent with CAPCOA and CARB definitions); • Regulatory requirements may determine current technology, e.g., advanced technology may be available, but not required, such as combined cycle gas turbine; • Will normally define the no project alternative (consistent with CAPCOA and CARE definitions); and • May be used to establish a project's CEQA baseline, only if consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15125. The importance of BAU lies not only in the fact that it is a methodology for calculating a project's future emissions, is also forms the emission level from which GHG emission reductions must occur. SCAQMD staff's current GHG significance threshold proposal includes the Tier 4 compliance option 1 that establishes a performance standard of reducing GHG emissions 30 percent below the project's projected BAU emissions through design features and/or mitigation measures. A 30 percent reduction from BAU is consistent with the target objectives of AB 32 and CARB's Scoping Plan. The intent of the Tier 4 compliance option 1 is to provide a feasible target objective, that will not only contribute to achieving the AB 32 target objective, but will also contribute to achieving the 2050 target of the Governor's Executive Order S-3-05, which establishes of target objective of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels or a 90 percent reduction from current BAU estimates. As recognized by CAPCOA and SCAQMD, BAU will evolve over time as the current regulatory framework changes to implement GHG reduction strategies, either statewide strategies, e.g., CARB's Scoping Plan, or any future federal strategies. Evolving BAU creates two issues for the CEQA practitioner. First, staffs proposed Tier 4 compliance option 1 target objective is unchanged from 30 percent, then over time as BAU changes to incorporate GHG reduction strategies, achieving the target objective will become more difficult. Second, any GHG significance thresholds that rely on BAU will have higher uncertainties because they rely on a constantly changing BAU, which may be difficult to define. 3 -7 October 2008 Page 1518 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal To resolve some of these issues of an evolving definition of BAU, SCAQMD staff recommends that a statewide definition be developed by CARB that is updated periodically. Until such time as a statewide definition of BAU is developed, the SCAQMD staff will rely on the above definition. Because the SCAQMD's staff's GHG significance proposal is considered to be an interim proposal, future updates or revisions to staff's proposal would also include updates to BAU or the target objective as BAU levels decline over time. It may be that a target objective percent reduction from BAU levels is a short-term GHG threshold proposal and may become less important in the future as other concepts are evaluated and more fully developed. GHG Source Categories to Analyze Life Cycle Analysis CEQA requires that the lead agency analyze direct and indirect impacts from a proposed project, giving due consideration to short-term and long-term effects (CEQA Guidelines 15126.2(a)). In the case of GHG pollutants a systems approach to evaluating the consequences of a particular product, process or activity may be more appropriate because of the long atmospheric lifetimes of the various GHGs (see Table 3-1). One of the most effective ways of evaluating GHGs using a systems approach is through the preparation of a life cycle analysis (LCA). The goal of a life cycle analysis is to compare the full range of environmental damages assignable to products and services, to be able to choose the least burdensome one. The term 'life cycle' refers to the concept that a fair, holistic assessment requires the assessment of raw material production, manufacture, distribution, use and disposal including all intervening transportation steps necessary or caused by the product's existence. The sum of all those steps - or phases - is the life cycle of the product. Performing a life cycle analysis may be difficult for a number of projects or processes because life cycle emission factors may not be well established for many activities or projects and the life cycle process itself may not be known or well-defined. SCAQMD staff, however, recommends that life cycle analyses be prepared for all projects undergoing a CEQA analysis, as this will produce a more defensible approach. If, however, any component of the life cycle analysis is unavailable, unknown, or not supported by scientific evidence, the lead agency should note such an analysis would be speculative pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15145 and terminate discussion of that impact. Direct/Indirect Impacts Consistent with CEQA, indirect and direct impacts of the project, typically within California, are required to be analyzed in the CEQA document for a proposed project. The analysis of direct GHG impacts is relatively straightforward as onsite GHG sources or directly related offsite GHG sources, such as worker commute trips, are generally readily identifiable. Indirect GHG emission sources are less obvious, but may include some of the sources identified in the following paragraphs. In general, 3 -8 October 2008 Page 1519 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal for most projects information on direct and indirect emissions may be available, rather than a full life-cycle analysis of emissions. The lead agency has typically been expected to address emissions that are closely related and within the capacity of the project proponent to control and/or influence. Direct Impacts - are primary effects that are caused by a project and occur at the same time and place, such as emissions from boilers, heaters, or other onsite emissions sources. Direct impacts generated by a project may include offsite sources directly related to the project such as emissions from worker commute trips, haul truck trips to import raw materials and/or export finished products or other goods. Direct GHG emission impacts will include both construction and operation activities. Because impacts from construction activities occur over a relatively short-term period of time, they contribute a relatively small portion of the overall lifetime project GHG emissions. In addition, GHG emission reduction measures for construction equipment are relatively limited. Therefore, SCAQMD staff is recommending that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime, so that GHG reduction measures will address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction strategies. Indirect Impacts - The CEQA Guidelines define indirect impacts as the following: an indirect physical change in the environment...which is not immediately related to the project,but which is caused indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (d)(2)). Indirect or secondary effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (CEQA Guidelines §15358)(a)(2)). DRAFT STAFF INTERIM GHG SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD PROPOSAL s indicated by t ion of t iff proposal over time, SCAQMD has general ecomme ded a tiered rlericinn tree annrnarh to ectahlichi eshol In CAPCOA's White Paper, eight of the 12 significance threshold options are based on a tiered threshold approach (see also Table 2-2 in Chapter 2). A tiered GHG significance threshold approach is an appealing approach because it provides flexibility in determining whether or not GHG emissions from a project are significant typically using a single methodology to establish various tiers that can be based on the physical size of the project, land use type, or other characteristics. The tiered approach envisioned by SCAQMD staff would require quantification of GHG emissions for all projects that are subject to CEQA and quantification of the GHG reduction effectiveness of design parameters incorporated into the project and any mitigation measures imposed by the lead agency. It may even be necessary to 3 -9 October 2008 Page 1520 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal quantify GHG emissions, if any, for projects that would otherwise qualify for a categorical exemption to document that no "cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant" (CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b), or that there is no "reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." (CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(c)). The CAPCOA White Paper also includes a discussion of a decision tree approach to tiering. Instead of using a single methodology to establish tiers, a decision tree approach would use multiple methodologies to demonstrate significance for a broad range of projects/plans that may be difficult to address using a single GHG significance threshold methodology. Using a decision tree approach promotes even greater flexibility in determining significance for a variety of project types. At the August 27, 2008 Working Group meeting#5, staff presented the revised interim GHG significance proposal#3, which included a tiered decision tree approach. Unlike the decision tree approach discussed in CAPCOA's White Paper, some tiers include multiple approaches for determining whether a project's GHG emissions are significant, rather than using a single different methodology for each tier. For the purposes of determining whether or not GHG emissions from affected projects are significant, project emissions will include direct, indirect, and, to the extent information is available, life cycle emissions during construction and operation. Construction emissions will be amortized over the life of the project, defined as 30 years, added to the operational emissions, and compared to the applicable interim GHG significance threshold tier. The following bullet points describe the basic structure of staff's tiered GHG significance threshold proposal for stationary sources. The components of revised staff proposal#3 are described in the following paragraphs and shown graphically in Figure 3-1. • Tier 1 — consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. For example, SB 97 specifically exempts a limited number of projects until it expires in 2010. If the project qualifies for an exemption, no further action is required. If the project does not qualify for an exemption, then it would move to the next tier. • Tier 2 — consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines §§15064(h)(3), 15125(d), or 15152(a). The GHG reduction plan must, at a minimum, comply with AB 32 GHG reduction goals; include emissions estimates agreed upon by either CARB or the SCAQMD, have been analyzed under CEQA, and have a certified Final CEQA document. Further, the GHG reduction plan must include a GHG emissions inventory tracking mechanism; process to monitor progress in achieving GHG emission reduction targets, and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if AB 32 goals are not met(enforcement). 3 - 10 October 2008 Page 1521 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal Figure 3-1 Revised Staff Proposal#3 Tiered Decision Tree Approach—August 27, 2008 Draft AQIVID Staff CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold 1. A DeaI Ge11B al PHulx or other Mal plans mill al a nsllrmm. } �+, amply.611)Me Daman legal otjedhoa at addOr-hailed Warrior'Eitau4leei3rwar 6-3-05,hate teen analyzed 111 rI.. G£4A,awl have a CAllked Mal CT CIA document;erwriaar.,. aMalalaa approval L GARB or`5CA. ;Mule a 13k1.] Irnia11Lf,t;VBcklll(l rrlacharllata,adorrrarael4.wled a comet- NO Male roIanlerrY IN,e aaeill elt IF colltMlrilsilte.gPsKr Pa I Tier 1:,aypirahle Enerrlpl oria 11 will 2. 91hahWata sot equir iera rerlycpula.11owea no lier2:awe Emlaskurn'AID Ural FIypgeG9 Irk 9ppeni rr nrl owl niftier to rues 4 eY pea eaiddig CE❑A ailrlelwea $4150e¢1F 31.1512501Y,1 mow}ai 1515 a)). W.', .I Teri: a "Iwth al lu''''rataai lr" "03ae .in ivitIEr!N I1ra3.1larl me�igruF4zrlirx slraemry LeM I f1O i M1liryaer coy4 ra Ir,duslrlel orajeate and a,000-urlyew C41aq ratcawne,c.alaealgarutel Ids pale x Paneled-dewed lee 26. NO Ter d-P43elorriearyr,'e 5larlderde Macs Holtl ]wm m C e..Ieed March Cr3)I Option rh L4NMM Patera s nriaiWh galaNial1 Targal 01:6601ae I4,g.31J percent)Fiom EAU Paw h arearalQlg Frcwl De5lgn Fealuae attd4n Implernaolln En Iah hided-den Meealdeu. O pelon f2.Early hrrpknieriteea3 al Applkahle ABS2Scogliv Plan Maeaures2. O pilon IS.h[hie4n saicLor-beriad ererldsid lag..paalaa per med.!, panaea pa wpm,Fool,wo.i.. NO Tier 5: [rt�1la hnyGgeren,Ineh nog deem alma hi.cam ;will 2 sa attwaae harga1 wllJnilieEn7Ca sereeWrlg lead dhoti "mad ror5]-wear picot.lee,dame project INS limited by peani,Wasik or Mew 1 1 I y I llkiorI111I4A4liWh lthi. l 1 I II I • I 4 1 i ' ir ^IGNIF1CAN f :lFI1Rz11- EGSTHI+F' ' --' I m IMPACT ACTH N N 3 - 11 October 2008 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal If the proposed project is consistent with the local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If the project is not consistent with a local GHG reduction plan or there is no approved plan, the GHG reduction does not include all of the components described above, or there is no adopted GHG reduction plan, the project would move to tier 3. • Tier 3 — attempts to identify small projects that would not likely contribute to significant cumulative GHG impacts. However, because of the magnitude of increasing global temperatures from current and future GHG emissions, staff is recommending that all projects must implement some measure or measures to contribute to reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, Tier 3 includes a requirement that all residential/commercial projects with GHG emissions less than the screening level must include efficiency components that reduce a certaingo X percentage beyond the requirements of Title 24 (Part 6, California Code of Regulations), California's energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. Project proponents would also have to reduce by a specified percentage electricity demand from water use, primarily electricity used for water conveyance. The most recentlyA past recommended screening level proposed by staff was 6,500 MTCO2eq./year. This screening level was derived using the SCAQMD's existing NOx operational threshold as a basis. The daily NOx operational significance threshold, 55 pounds per day was annualized, which results in 10 tons of NOx per year. Staff initially considered and then rejected a bifurcated screening level, that is one screening level for residential and commercial projects and a different screening level for industrial projects based on the URBEMIS modeling runs used to derive the 6,500 MTCO3eq/yr screening level because GHG emissions from industrial were of the same magnitude as the GHG emissions from residential and commercial projects. Staff has reconsidered the bifurcated screening level approach as there is a more scientific basis for deriving the different screening levels. SCAQMD staff is now recommending a bifurcated screening level approach to address two greatly differing project types: industrial projects as opposed to residential and commercial projects (which are largely indirect sources). The former category typically contains stationary source equipment whose emissions are largely permitted or regulated by the SCAQMD; whereas the latter category is mostly residential, commercial (may also include industrial) building structures that attract or generate mobile source emissions. In light of the GHG reductions needed to stabilize the climate while considering implementation resource requirements, the policy objective used to establish the screening thresholds is to capture projects that represent approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions from new sources. The following paragraphs describe the steps taken to derive the screening threshold values. 3 - 12 October 2008 Page 1523 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal Industrial Projects: Since the majority of GHG emissions in the district are comprised of CO2 emissions from burning natural gas rather than other types of fossil fuel, staff compiled reported annual natural gas consumption for 1,297115 permitted facilities for 2006-2007 and rank-ordered the facilities to estimate the 90th percentile of the cumulative natural gas usage for all permitted facilities. Operators of these facilities are required to report their emissions and associated throughput under the SCAQMD's Annual Emission Reporting (AER) Program if any of their criteria pollutant emissions exceed four tons per year(100 tons per year for CO) or if the facility has any reportable air toxics emission. Figure 3-2 shows that approximately 10 percent of facilities evaluated comprise more than 90 percent of the total natural gas consumption, which corresponds to 10,000 metric tons per year (tpy) of CO2 emissions. This value represents a boiler with a rating of approximately 27 million British thermal units per hour (mmbtu/hour) of heat input, operating at an 25 80 percent capacity factor. If the screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./yr is implemented, based on the permitting activities for 2006- 2007 it will result in at least 31 additional MNDs or EIRs being prepared by the SCAQMD as the lead agency unless another tier option is selected to demonstrate no significant impacts for GHG emissions. It should be noted that this analysis did not include other possible GHG pollutants such as methane, N2O; a life-cycle analysis; mobile sources; or indirect electricity consumption. Therefore, under a 10,000 MTCO2eq./yr screening level more projects would be required to go through an MND or EIR environmental analysis than is currently the case. Furthermore, when the SCAQMD acts as a lead agency, the stationary source equipment employed as part of the proposed project typically must comply with BACT or other SCAQMD rules, regulations, programs that require reducing criteria pollutants or air toxics. Therefore, staff is proposing to replace the 6,500 MTCO2/yr screening level with the 10,000 MTCO2eq/yr as the screening level in tier III for industrial projects when the SCAQMD is the lead agency for the project. Residential and Commercial Projects: To achieve the same 90 percent GHG emission capture rate for this segment of projects GHG emissions from residential and commercial sectors were compared to the GHG emissions from the industrial sector including the in-state power plants. The draft AB32 scoping plan indicates that based on statewide 2002-2004 average GHG emissions, the residential and commercial sectors account for approximately nine percent of the total statewide GHG inventory, while the industrial sector (including instate power plants) accounts for approximately 30 percent of the statewide GHG emission inventory. The inventory methodology for both sectors includes only on-site energy use, consistent with the staff approach taken in deriving the 10,000 tpy threshold. Assuming similar emission characteristics also exist for the residential and commercial sector (i.e., large residential or commercial projects, although fewer in numbers, contribute substantially more to the total emissions), it is estimated that at a threshold of approximately 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr emissions (10,000 x (9 percent / 30 percent)) would capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new residential or commercial projects. A series of sensitivity analyses was performed by the staff using URBEMIS to assess the likely project size for 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr emissions. Table 3-3 illustrates various projects by size and shape. 3 - 13 October 2008 Page 1524 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal Figure 3-2 Total Number of AER Facilities and Their Accumulative Reported NG Usage FY 06-07 350000 300000 ■ ■ 250000 ■ Total#of AER Facilities= 1,297 • g 200000 ■ Total#of Fac.accounting for 90%of the total NG usage=143 ■ (thus, the remaining 10%of total NG usage is from 1,154 facilties) ■ f Accum.Usage Total#of Fac.accounting for 80%of the total NG usage=45(which is a subset of the 143) ■ 150000 ■ ■ 8 MT=Metric Tons tpy=Tons per year 100000 CO2=39,95 T NOx= 13.2' sy 50000 CO2=9,738 MT NOx=6.16 tpy 0 1 66 131 196 261 326 391 456 521 586 651 716 781 846 911 976 1041 1106 11-1 1236 co m Number of AER Facilities 90%of NG usage 80%of NG usage Ul 3 - 14 October 2008 Chapter 3-Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal Table 3-3 URBEMIS Run Results for Residential/Commercial Projects Emitting Approximately 3,000 MTCO2 per Year* Area Source Emissions Operational Emissions TOTAL Weighted Avg CO2 CO2 CO2 Trip Rate Size (tons/year) (MT/year) (tons/year) CO2 (MT/year) CO2 (MT/year) Res - Single Unit 19.54 80 units 326.86 297.15 1 3003.56 2730.51 3027.65 Res -Apt 9.17 175 units 422.70 384.27 2971.95 2701.77 3086.05 Comm -Office 6.02 265,000 ft2 387.41 352.19 2961.75 2692.50 3044.69 Comm - Bank 1 206.22 9,500 ft2 14.38 13.07 3192.90 2902.64 2915.71 Single/Apt 19.54 35 units 379.59 345.08 2964.82 2695.29 3040.37 9.17 100 units Office/Bank 6.02 170,000 ft2 254.19 231.08 I 3042.71 2766.10 2997.18 206.22 3,400 ft2 6.02 135,000 ft2 Office/Single 355.13 322.85 1 2956.32 2687.56 3010.41 19.54 40 units 6.02 135,000 ft2 Office/Apt 403.19 366.54 2952.34 2683.95 3050.48 9.17 85 units Bank/Single 206.22 3,700 ft2 202.81 184.37 3052.93 2775.39 2959.76 19.54 50 units 206.22 4,000 ft2 Bank/Apt 248.12 225.56 3042.64 2766.04 2991.60 9.17 100 units 19.54 20 units Single/Apt/Office 9.17 65 units 382.60 347.82 2945.26 2677.51 3025.33 6.02 100,000 ft2 19.54 20 units Single/Apt/Bank 9.17 65 units 241.78 219.80 3020.76 2746.15 2965.95 206.22 3,550 ft2 Avg CO2 3009.60 (MT/year): - *Offsite electricity use, water use, or other potential life cycle emissions not included. co co m N C) 3 - 15 October 2008 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal As shown in Table 3-3, this threshold would represent a residential development of about 70 single-family dwelling units. It should be noted that the sensitivity analysis did not include GHG emissions from electricity use and water use. As a result, similar to the earlier discussion of industrial projects, this screening level of 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr could capture development projects less than 70 single-family dwelling units. In CAPCOA's White Paper, it is suggested that a thresholds of 900 MTCO2eq/yr would capture 90 percent of all development projects, which should translate into at least 90 percent of GHG emissions from the residential and commercial sectors2. According to CAPCOA 900 MTCO2eq/yr equates to approximately 50 single- family dwelling units. This information appears to corroborate the SCAQMD staff's finding that the policy objective of capturing 90 percent of all GHG emissions for this region can be achieved with a screening level of 3000 MTCO2eq/yr. Therefore, staff is recommending that this value be used by lead agencies for residential and commercial developments, including industrial parks, warehouses, etc. • Tier 4—Decision Tree Options: consists of three decision tree options to demonstrate that a project is not significant for GHG emissions. The three compliance options are as follows. Compliance Option 1 — the lead agency would calculate GHG emissions for a project using a BAU methodology. Once GHG emissions are calculated, the project proponent would need to incorporate design features into the project and/or implement GHG mitigation measures to demonstrate a 30 percent reduction from BAU. Although a 30 percent reduction below BAU is consistent with the target objectives of AB 32, it will continue to reduce GHG emissions beyond 2020, thus, contributing to GHG reductions pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order S-3- 05 (a 90 percent reduction compared to current GHG emissions). A 30 percent reduction is also considered to be an achievable GHG reduction target based on current technologies. Compliance Option 2 — this option consists of early compliance with AB 32 through early implementation of CARB's Scoping Plan Measures. The intent of this compliance option is to accelerate GHG emission reductions from the various 2 Although the CAPCOA White Paper implies that 900 metric tons per year equates to a 90 percent capture rate, there is no explicit information provided in the White Paper that demonstrates this correlation. Indeed, the CAPCOA authors state that 900 metric tons, which represents approximately 50 residential units, corresponds to widely divergent capture rate percentile rankings depending on the project location (see discussion on page 43 of the White Paper). Percentile rankings were based on a survey of four cities in California. A project of 900 metric tons per year representing a 90 percent capture rate appears to be a working assumption for which there appears to be no factual basis. Further, although not explicitly stated, it is assumed that the 900 metric tons were derived using the URBEMIS2007 model. It should be noted that that the URBEMIS2007 model only quantifies CO2 emissions and direct emissions primarily from on-road mobile sources. It does not capture other GHG pollutants or indirect GHG emissions such as emissions from energy generation, water conveyance, etc. Therefore, it is likely that a 50-unit residential project would actually generate higher GHG emissions than 900 metric tons per year. 3 - 15 Page 1527 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal sectors subject to CARB's Scoping Plan to eliminate GHG emission, especially for those GHGs that have a long atmospheric lifetime such as CO2, sulfur hexafluoride, etc., to minimize future projected impacts to California from global climate change. Compliance Option 3 — this compliance option consists of establishing sector- based performance standards. For example, it may be possible to use the 1990 inventory required under AB 32 to establish an efficiency standard such as pounds per person, pounds per worker, pounds per square feet, pounds per item manufactured, etc. When calculating GHG emissions from a project, if they are less than the established efficiency standard the project would not be significant relative to GHG emissions, while projects exceeding the efficiency standard would be significant. If the lead agency or project proponent cannot achieve the performance standards on any of the compliance options in Tier 4, GHG emissions would be considered significant. • Tier 5 — under this tier, the lead agency would quantify GHG emissions from the project and the project proponent would implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level. In addition, the project proponent would be required to provide offsets for the life of the project, which is defined as 30 years. If the project proponent is unable to obtain sufficient offsets, incorporate design features, or implement GHG reduction mitigation measures to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the screening level, then GHG emissions from the project would be considered significant. Since it is currently uncertain how offsite mitigation measures, including purchased offsets, interact with future AB 32 Scoping Plan measures, the AQMD would allow substitution of mitigation measures that include an enforceable commitment to provide mitigation prior to occurrence of emissions and to prevent mitigating the same emissions twice. Mitigation Preference — If a project generates significant adverse impacts, CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 requires identification of mitigation measures to minimize potentially significant impacts. Because GHG emissions contribute to global change, mitigation measures could be implemented locally, nationally, or internationally and still provide global climate change benefits. Because reducing GHG emissions may provide co-benefits through concurrent reductions in criteria pollutants, when considering mitigation measures when the AQMD is the lead agency under CEQA, staff will implement mitigation measures that are real, quantifiable, verifiable, and surplus in the following order of preference. > Incorporate GHG reduction features into the project design, e.g., increase a building's energy efficiency, use materials with a lower global warming potential than conventional materials, purchase building materials locally, etc. > Implement onsite measures that provide direct GHG emission reductions onsite, e.g., replace onsite combustion equipment (boilers, heaters, steam 3 - 16 October 2008 Page 1528 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal generators, etc.) with more efficient combustion equipment, replace existing high global warming potential refrigerants with low global warming refrigerants, eliminate or minimize fugitive emissions, etc. > Implement neighborhood mitigation measure projects that could include incentives for installing solar power, increasing energy efficiency by exceeding Title 24 building standards through replacing low efficiency water heaters with high efficiency water heaters, increasing building insulation, using fluorescent bulbs, replacing old inefficient refrigerators with efficient refrigerators using low global warming potential refrigerants, etc. > Implement in-district mitigation measures such as any of the above identified GHG reduction measures; reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through greater rideshare incentives, transit improvements, etc. > Implement in-state mitigation measures, which could include any of the above measures. > Implement out of state mitigation measure projects, which may include purchasing offsets if no other options are available. CARB's Interim GHG Significance Threshold Proposal In October 2008 CARB released its interim GHG significance threshold proposal and held a public workshop on October 27, 2008. CARB's threshold is considered to be an interim threshold because CARB staff intends to periodically review and change its threshold proposal as necessary. CARB's Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal (Proposal) states that non-zero GHG significance thresholds can be supported by substantial evidence. Futher, different GHG significance thresholds may be established for different sectors. Therefore, as part of its initial interim GHG significance threshold proposal CARB is proposing two separate GHG significance thresholds, one for new industrial projects and another for residential/commercial projects subject to CEQA. CARB's proposal uses a tiered approach(see Table 3-4). 3 - 17 October 2008 Page 1529 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal Table 3-4 Comparison of CARB's and AQMD's Interim GHG Significance Thresholds Approaches Stationary/Industrial Sector Projects Residential/Commercial Sector Projects CARB AQMD CARB AQMD (Not Recommended at this Time) Policy Capture 90%of statewide Capture 90% of district wide Capture X% of statewide Capture 90% of district wide Objective stationary project emissions GHG emissions (industrial) residential/commercial residential/commercial project project emissions GHG emissions Exemption Apply applicable Apply applicable exemption Apply Applicable Exemption Apply Applicable Exemption exemption Regional GHG N.A. Project Consistent with Project Consistent with Project Consistent with Reduction Applicable GHG Reduction Applicable GHG Reduction Applicable GHG Reduction Plan Plan with GHG inventorying, Plan with GHG inventorying, Plan with GHG inventorying, monitoring, enforcement, etc. monitoring, enforcement, etc. monitoring, enforcement, etc. Thresholds Project<7,000 GHG emissions from Project meets construction& Project is<3,000 MTCO2eq/yr MTCO2eq/yr&meets industrial project is< 10,000 operation performance &exceeds Title 24 Energy construction& MTCO2eq/yr, includes tandards, e.g., energy,water Efficiency Standards by X%, if transportation performance construction emissions use,waste &ransportation& applicable—construction standards amortized over 30 years& <X MTCO2eq/yr emissions amortized over 30 added to operational GHG years&added to operational emissions GHG emissions Performance See above NA See above 3 Compliance Options: 1) Standards Reduce GHG emissions 30% below BAU; 2) Early Implement AB 32 Measure; 3) Comply with Performance Standard Offsets Offsite substitution allowed Implement offsite mitigation Offsite substitution allowed Implement offsite mitigation for v for life of project, i.e., 30 life of project, i.e., 30 years years,with mitigation with mitigation preference preference Determination GHG emissions significant, GHG emissions significant, GHG emissions significant, GHG emissions significant, EIR is prepared, if meeting EIR is prepared, if meeting EIR is prepared, if meeting EIR is prepared, if meeting none of the above none of the above none of the above none of the above 3 - 18 October 2008 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal CARB's interim GHG significance threshold for industrial sources was developed to capture "the vast majority (-90% statewide) of the GHG emissions from new industrial projects being subject to CEQA's requirement to impose feasible mitigation." According to CARB's Proposal, CARB staff used data from a survey of industrial boilers performed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in which it was concluded that small boilers with an input capacity of 10 MMBtu/hr corresponded to 93 percent of total industrial boiler input capacity, or 4,660 MTCO2e/yr. Using this result and accounting for process losses, purchased electricity, and water usage and wastewater discharge, CARB staff is recommending 7,000 MTCO2eq/yr as a GHG significance threshold for industrial projects. The following bullet points summarize CARB's proposed interim GHG significance threshold for industrial sources. • Box 1 — Apply any applicable categorical or statutory exemptions. If the project does not qualify for an exemption, move to Box 2. • Box 2 — The industrial project must meet both of the following performance standards or equivalent mitigation measures to be deemed insignificant for GHGs: > Construction—Project must meet an interim performance standard for construction- related emissions (performance standard not yet defined). ➢ Transportation — Project must meet an interim performance standard for transportation(performance standard not yet defined). AND > Project with mitigation will emit no more than 7,000 MTCO2eq/yr. If the project does not qualify for either of the performance standards or exceeds 7,000 MTCO2eq/yr, move to Box 3. • Box 3 —Project is deemed significant and an EIR must be prepared. • CARB's Preliminary Draft Proposal for Residential and Commercial projects is summarized in the following bullet points. • Box 1 — Apply any applicable categorical or statutory exemptions. If the project does not qualify for an exemption, move to Box 2. • Box 2 — Project complies with a previously approved plan that addresses GHG emissions and must: include a GHG reduction target consistent with AB 32; be consistent with transportation-related target adopted by CARB pursuant to SB 375; include a GHG inventory and mechanism for monitoring GHG emissions; include enforceable GHG requirements; include a mechanism for periodic updates to plan; and have a certified CEQA document. If the project is 3 - 19 Page 1531 Chapter 3—Interim GHG Significance Threshold Staff Proposal consistent with a GHG plan that includes all of these elements, it is presumed to be insignificant for GHGs. If the project is not consistent with a GHG plan or there is no adopted GHG plan that includes all of the above elements, move to Box 3. • Box 3 — The residential/commercial project must meet all of the following performance standards or equivalent mitigation measures to be deemed insignificant for GHGs: ➢ Construction— Project must meet an interim performance standard for construction- related emissions (performance standard not yet defined). > Operations — Project must meet the following performance standards: energy use performance standard defined in CEC's Tier II Energy Efficiency goal; an interim performance standard for water use (performance standard not yet defined); an interim performance standard for waste (performance standard not yet defined); and an interim performance standard for transportation (performance standard not yet defined). AND The project with performance standards or equivalent mitigation will emit no more than X MTCO2eq/yr(criterion to be developed). If the project does not qualify for any one of the performance standards or exceeds X MTCO2eq/yr, move to Box 4. • Box 4—Project is deemed significant and an EIR must be prepared. For a detailed description of CARB's interim GHG significance threshold proposal, refer to the following URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ceqa/meetings/102708/prelimdraftproposa11024 08.pdf. CARB is currently accepting comments on its Draft Proposal and has scheduled a second public workshop on December 9, 2008. CARB staff currently anticipates taking their proposal to their Board in February 2009. 3 -20 October 2008 Page 1532 CHAPTER 4 CONSIDERATIONS WHEN ANALYZING GHG EMISSIONS Introduction GHG Analysis Recommendations Page 1533 Chapter 4—Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions INTRODUCTION As noted in Chapter 1, on June 19, 2008, OPR, in collaboration with the California Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, released a Technical Advisory containing informal guidance for public agencies as they address the issue of climate change in their CEQA documents. With regard to analyzing GHG emission impacts OPR states, "Each public agency that is a lead agency for complying with CEQA needs to develop its own approach to performing a climate change analysis for projects that generate GHG emissions. A consistent approach should be applied for the analysis of all such projects, and the analysis must be based on best available information... Lead agencies should determine whether greenhouse gases may be generated by a proposed project, and if so, quantify or estimate the GHG emissions by type and source." Other than this general advice, the Technical Advisory does not provide explicit details for quantifying GHG emissions. CAPCOA's White Paper provides a comprehensive discussion of modeling tools that are currently available for analyzing GHG emissions3. As indicated in the White Paper, no one model is currently available that is capable of estimating all of a project's direct and indirect GHG emissions. It is likely, however, that the Urban Emissions (URBEMIS) Model will be the most commonly used model for calculating GHG emissions because it currently calculates CO2 emissions (in addition to criteria pollutant emissions) during both construction and operation of proposed projects, it is publicly available, and already widely used in California. Statewide use of the URBEMIS model would provide consistency throughout California with regard to quantifying GHG emissions. For a list of currently available models that calculate GHG emissions and summaries of the capabilities, advantages, and disadvantages of each model refer to Table 10 on pages 75 through 78 in the CAPCOA White Paper. The purpose of this chapter is to provide more explicit guidance to CEQA practitioners with regard to quantifying GHG emissions than OPR's Technical Advisory, while building on the information provided CAPCOA's White Paper. GHG ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS Direct/Indirect Impacts As noted in Chapter 3 of this Guidance Document, consistent with CEQA, indirect and direct impacts of the project, typically within California, are required to be analyzed in the CEQA document for a proposed project. The analysis of direct GHG impacts is 3 For maximum transparency with regard to quantifying GHG emissions and disclosure to the public, SCAQMD staff recommends using only publicly available models. 4- 1 October 2008 Page 1534 Chapter 4—Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions relatively straightforward as onsite GHG sources or directly related offsite GHG sources, such as worker commute trips, are generally readily identifiable. Indirect GHG emission sources are less obvious, but may include some of the sources identified in the following paragraphs. In general, for most projects information on direct and indirect emissions may be available, rather than a full life-cycle analysis of emissions. The lead agency has typically been expected to address emissions that are closely related and within the capacity of the project proponent to control and/or influence. Direct Impacts - are primary effects that are caused by a project and occur at the same time and place, such as emissions from boilers, heaters, or other onsite emissions sources. Direct impacts generated by a project may include offsite sources directly related to the project such as emissions from worker commute trips, haul truck trips to import raw materials and/or export finished products or other goods. The following paragraphs provide general guidance on quantifying direct GHG emissions. CAPCOA's White Paper provides a comprehensive discussion of modeling tools that are currently available for analyzing GHG emissions. Further, no one model is currently available that is capable of estimating all of a project's direct and indirect GHG emissions. Although there are a number of modeling tools available to calculate GHG emissions the following discussion focuses on a combination of approaches using the URBEMIS model as the basis for analyzing GHG emission impacts. Other approaches for calculating GHG emissions can be used, as long as they are supported by scientific evidence and include publicly available information. The URBEMIS model is a publicly available model that is currently used statewide to calculate criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation activities for a wide variety of land use projects. The model is regularly updated through a collaboration of air pollution control agencies, including the SCAQMD, to reflect the most current data, methodologies, and emission factors for quantifying criteria pollutant emissions. The most current update to the model is URBEMIS2007 version 9.2.4, which quantifies CO2 emissions in addition to criteria pollutant emissions. Currently, there are several disadvantages to using the URBEMIS model to calculate GHG emissions from a proposed project and, as a result, it should not be the only tool used to calculate GHG emissions. For example, currently the URBEMIS model only quantifies CO2 emissions and not other GHG pollutants, with the exception of methane from mobile sources, which is converted to CO2eq. emissions. Since CO2 emissions comprise the bulk of GHG emissions from most projects, URBEMIS GHG results are fairly representative of GHG emissions from a project. To quantify mobile source emissions from on-road mobile sources, the URBEMIS model uses trip rate information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook (ITE, 2001) as the trip rate default factor for all land uses. ITE trip rate information is widely used and is considered legally defensible as they rely on substantial reports and surveys of trip rates in cities with little or no transit. As a result, the ITE trip rates are also considered to provide a conservative estimate of trip 4-2 October 2008 Page 1535 Chapter 4—Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions rates and associated emissions. The model, however, treats each trip as a separate trip and doesn't consider that a single trip may be used for more than one purpose, referred to as "internalization." The model also does not fully account for interaction between land uses in its estimation of mobile source operational emissions. URBEMIS does allow the user to overwrite the default trip rates and characteristics with more project- specific data from a traffic study prepared for a project. In spite of the disadvantages of the URBEMIS model described above, it can be used as the first step in quantifying GHG emissions for typical land use projects because it establishes default parameters for the most common emission sources from a project including construction equipment types and activity profiles, area of site disturbed during construction, building size, number vehicle trips, etc., if the level of information about the project is low. If more information about the project is available such as a precise profile of construction equipment and activity levels, number of vehicle trips based on a traffic study prepared for the project, etc., this information can be incorporated into the model. The model can then quantify CO2 emissions from both construction and operation. The URBEMIS construction analysis quantifies criteria pollutant and CO2 emissions from both off-road sources (primarily construction equipment) and on-road sources (worker commute trips, haul truck trips, etc.). To further flesh out the construction analysis, the lead agency would have to identify emission factors for other GHG pollutants likely to be emitted during construction, i.e., methane and nitrous oxide4, for both off-road and on-road emissions sources and then quantify the GHG emission results using spreadsheets or other available tools. The off-road CO2 emission factors in the URBEMIS model are generated from CARB's off- road model (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm). Methane emission factors for off-road equipment can also be obtained from CARB's OFFROAD2007 model. CO2 and methane emission factors for off-road equipment that are based on CARB's OFFROAD2007 model can also be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA webpages at the following URL: http://www.agmd.gov/cega/handbook/offroad/offroad.html. Other sources of off-road GHG emissions factors for equipment used in California may be used, as long as they are supported by scientific evidence and are publicly available. The URBEMIS model is able to quantify mobile source CO2 emissions during construction from on-road mobile sources such as construction worker commute trips, heavy-duty truck trips to haul away demolition debris, soil hauling to and from the site etc., and during operation, primarily vehicle trips using ITE's Trip Generation Manual (ITE, 2001). The on-road CO2 emission factors in the URBEMIS model for both construction and operation are generated from CARB's on- road mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2007 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/onroad.htm). Methane emission factors for on-road mobile sources can also be obtained from 4 Hydrofluorocarbons,perfluorocarbons,and sulfur hexafluoride are not combustion emissions,so would not normally be emitted during construction. 4-3 October 2008 Page 1536 Chapter 4—Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions CARB's EMFAC2007 model. CO2 and methane emission factors for on-road mobile sources that are based on CARB's EMFAC2007 model can also be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA webpages at the following URL: http://www.agmd.gov/cega/handbook/onroad/onroad.html. The analysis of operation emissions from all types of land uses in the URBEMIS model focuses primarily on mobile source emissions and some area sources. The model does not quantify emissions from stationary sources. For stationary sources that require a permit from the SCAQMD, emission calculation procedures and methodologies are available in the SCAQMD's Best Available Control Technology Guidelines (http://www.agmd.gov/bact/partd7-9-2004update.pdf). Examples of facilities that use stationary sources requiring a permit from the SCAQMD include: fossil fuel power plants5, cement plants, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, gas stations, dry cleaners and industrial boilers. The SCAQMD has procedures and methodologies for projects subject to SCAQMD permits to calculate criteria pollutants and air toxics. It is anticipated that these same procedures and methodologies could be extended to estimate a permitted facility's GHG calculations. For are any stationary and area sources that do not require SCAQMD permits, the same methodologies used for permitted sources could be used. It will be necessary to contact the SCAQMD to obtain information on GHG emission calculation methodologies applicable to stationary source equipment. Indirect Impacts - Indirect or secondary effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (CEQA Guidelines §15358)(a)(2)). The examples of facilities that use stationary sources requiring a permit from the SCAQMD that may contribute to direct environmental impact (fossil fuel power plants, cement plants, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, gas stations, dry cleaners and industrial boilers) may also contribute to indirect impacts and, therefore, should be included, as necessary in the CEQA analysis of GHGs. Quantification Methodologies and GHG Emission Factors Methodologies for calculating GHG emissions and GHG emission factors are currently not readily available. Until such time as GHG calculation methodologies and emission factors become well established and more readily available, lead agencies may want to consult the following references to identify acceptable methodologies and emission factors. 1. The first useful reference for GHG emission factors for stationary sources is EPA's Air Pollutant (AP)-42, which is a compilation of air pollutant emission 5 According to CEQA Guidelines§15227,CEQA does not apply to projects outside of California. The California Attorney General's Office has rendered an opinion stating that the definition of the environment in CEQA does not stop at the borders of California. Further,California public agencies that take an action outside of California is still bound by the requirements of CEQA to prepare an EIR if the action may cause a significant effect on the environment. 4-4 October 2008 Page 1537 Chapter 4—Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions factors for stationary point and area sources. Each of the first 13 chapters of AP- 42 is dedicated to a specific source activity such as solid waste disposal, petroleum industry, and metallurgical industry. Since the publication of the fifth edition (and supplementals) in 2001, there have been a number of updates to the various specific stationary sources such as hot asphalt plants, organic liquid storage tanks, and coke production. In addition to the criteria pollutant emissions, some of the updated AP-42 chapters provide GHG emission factors for a variety of sources. For example, Chapter 15 of AP-42 focuses on GHG emissions from biogenic sources such as soils, termites, lightning, and enteric fermentation (animal digestive fermentation). 2. Second, the California Climate Action Registry (C-CAR) has prepared a General Reporting Protocol (GRP), which is a relatively easy-to-follow user's manual that outlines the principles, concepts, calculation methodologies and procedures required for effective participation in the California Registry. The appendices of the GRP provide GHG emissions factors, specifically CO2, CH4 and N20, for electricity use, mobile combustion and stationary combustion based on fuel usage type. 3. Third, a thorough internet search should be conducted to find reliable sources of emissions factors that would assist in accurately determining GHG emissions from a specific source being evaluated. Again, all potential GHGs, such as CO2, CH4 and N20, should be evaluated to the best of one's ability to locate dependable information. 4. Finally, a material balance approach also may provide reliable average emission estimates for specific sources. A material balance is when one accounts for (or "balances") all the materials going into and coming out of the process in order to make a credible emissions estimation. For some sources, a material balance may provide a better estimate of emissions especially in situations where a high percentage of material is lost to the atmosphere (e. g., sulfur in fuel, or solvent loss in an uncontrolled coating process.) In other cases, material balances may be inappropriate where material is consumed or chemically combined in the process, or where losses to the atmosphere are a small portion of the total process throughput. Reporting GHG Emissions—Daily vs. Annual Emissions The analysis of GHGs is a much different analysis than the analysis of criteria pollutants for the following reasons. For criteria pollutants, significance thresholds are based on daily emissions because attainment or non-attainment is based on daily exceedances of applicable ambient air quality standards. Further, several ambient air quality standards are based on relatively short term exposure effects on human health, e.g., one-hour and eight-hour. Since the half-life of CO2 is approximately 100 years, the effects of GHGs are longer-term, affecting global climate over a relatively long time frame (see also Table 3-1). 4-5 October 2008 Page 1538 Chapter 4—Considerations When Analyzing GHG Emissions Typical GHG emission inventories (EPA5, ARB6, etc.) represent directly emitted GHGs during a given year. As a result, the current convention is to present GHG emissions as annual emissions. The URBEMIS model can be set to calculate annual emissions for a project. When using the URBEMIS model to calculate annual GHG emissions, it may be useful to modify the trip rate for each land use using a weighted trip rate average to more accurately reflect annualized trip rates. A weighted trip rate average reflects the trip rates during the week, as well as trip rates during Saturdays and Sundays. Trip rate information for weekdays and weekend days can be found in the ITE Trip Rate Handbook. 4-6 October 2008 Page 1539 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Introduction Future Action Items Page 1540 Chapter 5—Conclusion INTRODUCTION CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(a) encourages lead agencies to establish thresholds of significance to determine the significance of an environmental impact. Further, thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(b)). Staffs proposed interim GHG significance threshold proposal has been developed through a public process consisting of a series of Stakeholder Working Group meetings. Staff proposals have been modified over time based on written and oral feedback from the Working Group. Staffs intent was to reach consensus to the extent feasible, but for some items staff could not find common ground with some of the stakeholders. The next immediate step for SCAQMD staff is to present a final interim GHG significance threshold proposal to the SCAQMD Governing Board for consideration. If the Governing Board approves staffs final interim GHG significance threshold proposal, then staff will embark on a number of short-term and intermediate term activities to provide outreach to public agencies that might use staffs interim GHG significance threshold to determine whether or not their projects' GHG emissions are significant, periodically revisit and revise as necessary the interim proposal, and accommodate stakeholders' requests for more information on GHG calculation methodologies and mitigation measures. The following sections provide discussions on future anticipated action items FUTURE ACTION ITEMS Interim GHG Significance Threshold Outreach Program It is currently anticipated that staffs interim GHG significance threshold proposal will be presented to, and considered by the Board at the November 7, 2008 public hearing. Consistent with other significance threshold proposals adopted by the Governing Board, if the draft GHG significance threshold proposal is adopted, staff will meet with local cities, councils of governments, and leagues of cities to discuss the staff proposal and address any questions or concerns. Once the interim GHG significance threshold is adopted, this Guidance Document will be posted on the SCAQMD's CEQA web pages. Staff will also send notice of the adoption of the staff proposal to all agencies, organizations, and individuals on the SCAQMD's CEQA "Interested Parties" mailing list. In addition, it is expected that staff will prepare and make available an informational brochure that summarizes information about the interim GHG significance proposal in addition to this Guidance Document. 5- 1 October 2008 Page 1541 Chapter 5—Conclusion Starting in January 2009, as part of its intergovernmental review (IGR)responsibilities under CEQA, where the SCAQMD reviews and CEQA documents prepared by other public agencies, SCAQMD will begin more thorough evaluations of CEQA documents with regard to their GHG analyses and the basis by which they make a determination of significance. Staff will begin recommending use of the staff's interim GHG significance threshold proposal or other available GHG significance thresholds based on substantial evidence in comment letters on notices of preparation of an EIR. As of March 1, 2009, staff will formally recommend use of staffs interim GHG significance threshold proposal or other available GHG significance thresholds based on substantial evidence in comment letters on NDs and MNDs. As of July 1, 2009, staff will formally recommend use of staffs interim GHG significance threshold proposal or other available GHG significance thresholds based on substantial evidence in comment letters on EIRs. Compile Lists of GHG Design Features and Mitigation Measures CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 requires an EIR to "describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy." Ideally, it is desirable to avoid impacts altogether through incorporating design features into the proposed project. Because staffs recommended interim GHG significance threshold includes performance standards (see tier 4 compliance options 1 and 3) or a project proponent may try to reduce GHG emissions to less than the applicable screening levels, mitigation measures or design features are important components of the overall GHG significance threshold strategy. As a result, a number of GHG Working Group stakeholders has requested that SCAQMD compile lists of design features or mitigation measures to assist with reducing GHG emissions for all land use types. In response to the request from GHG Working Group stakeholders to develop GHG design features and mitigation measures, over the next year SCAQMD staff will compile lists of GHG reduction strategies, including control efficiencies, by sector and make the lists available online with other recommended mitigation measures. There is already a robust body of mitigation measures available (see in particular the CAPCOA bullet point discussion below), but in most cases, they do not include control efficiencies. SCAQMD staff will use the following mitigation sources as a basis from which to compile mitigation strategies. • CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F — this appendix includes a list of general energy conservation measures that may be used as a basis to identify GHG reduction strategies. The measures do not contain GHG control efficiencies, so they would need further review to determine if control efficiencies are available. • CAPCOA White Paper — this document provides a comprehensive discussion of GHG reduction strategies and specific mitigation measures are listed in Table 16 in Appendix B. The mitigation measures are grouped by emissions source type, such as transportation measures, parking measures, commercial and residential design features, etc. Table 16 also provides other useful information about each 5-2 October 2008 Page 1542 Chapter 5—Conclusion mitigation measure including source of each measure, comments and descriptions about each control measure, etc. Most importantly, for many of the mitigation measures CAPCOA has included an emission reduction score. In most cases, the emission reduction score is given as a range. As a result, further evaluation would be necessary to provide a single more precise emission reduction score or a defensible average. Otherwise, it is likely that the high end of the emission reduction score would be used. • CARB - is actively working to develop and adopt GHG protocols to support the Climate Change Program. CARB is working in collaboration with other agencies and organizations, including the California Climate Action Registry, to adopt consistent and standardized methods to accurately report GHG emissions. There are two kinds of GHG protocols, a reporting protocol and a project protocol. The project protocol may be useful as it sets standards and provides specific guidance to define GHG reduction projects and quantify and report GHG reductions from project activities. Some example protocols include manure management and urban forestry. It is expected that additional protocols will be developed and adopted by CARE. It is also expected that CARB's Scoping Plan may provide guidance on regulatory guidance that could be used to develop GHG emission reduction measures. GHG reduction strategies that may also serve as GHG mitigation measures to be developed by CARE over the next two years are shown in Table 5- 1. Table 5-1 California Air Resources Board GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Description of Strategy I Other Light Duty New standards would be adopted to phase in beginning in the 2017 model Vehicle year Technology Hydrofluorocarbon 1)Ban retail sale of HFC in small cans;2)Require that only low global Reduction warming potential(GWP)refrigerants be used in new vehicular systems;3) Adopt specifications for new commercial refrigeration;4)Add refrigerant leak-tightness to the pass criteria for vehicular Inspection and Maintenance programs; 5)Enforce federal ban on releasing HFCs. Transportation Strategies to reduce emissions from TRUs,increase off-road electrification, Refrigeration and increase use of shore-side/port electrification. Units,Off-Road Electrification, Port Electrification Manure San Joaquin Valley Rule 4570(adopted 6/15/06)reduces volatile organic Management compounds from confined animal facilities through implementation of control options. Alternative Fuels: CARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1 to 4 percent Biodiesel biodiesel displacement of California diesel fuel. Blends 5-3 October 2008 Page 1543 Chapter 5—Conclusion Table 5-1 (Concluded) California Air Resources Board GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Strategy Description of Strategy Alternative Fuels: Increased use of ethanol fuel. Ethanol Heavy-Duty Increased efficiency in the design of heavy duty vehicles and an education Vehicle Emission program for the heavy duty vehicle sector. Reduction Measures Reduced Venting Rule considered for adoption by the Air Pollution Control Districts for and Leaks in Oil improved management practices. and Gas Systems Hydrogen The California Hydrogen Highway Network(CA H2 Net)is a State Highway initiative to promote the use of hydrogen as a means of diversifying the sources of transportation energy. Achieve 50% Achieving the State's 50 percent waste diversion mandate as established by Statewide the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989,(AB 939,Sher,Chapter Recycling Goal 1095, Statutes of 1989),will reduce climate change emissions associated with energy intensive material extraction and production as well as methane emission from landfills.According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board,in 2005 the statewide waste diversion rate was 52 percent.6 Landfill Methane Install direct gas use or electricity projects at landfills to capture and Capture use emitted methane. Zero Waste-High Additional recycling beyond the State's 50%recycling goal. Recycling • CEC and CPUC — These agencies are actively developing GHG emission reduction strategies that may also be used to develop GHG mitigation measures for specific energy production sources. Examples of CEC and CPUC GHG emission reduction strategies are shown in Table 5-2. Other sources of potential GHG emission reduction measures will be evaluated and incorporated, as applicable into any GHG mitigation measure lists developed by the SCAQMD. 6 CIWMB,2007;http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGCentral/Rates/Diversion/2005/Default.htm 5-4 October 2008 Page 1544 Chapter 5—Conclusion Table 5-2 GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Implemented by CEC and CPUC Strategy Description of Strategy ENERGY COMMISSION (CEC) Building Energy Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the CEC to adopt and periodically Efficiency update its building energy efficiency standards (that apply to newly Standards in Place constructed buildings and additions to and alterations to existing buildings). and in Progress Appliance Energy Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the Energy Commission to adopt Efficiency and periodically update its appliance energy efficiency standards(that apply Standards in Place to devices and equipment using energy that are sold or offered for sale in and in Progress California). Cement Cost-effective reductions to reduce energy consumption and to lower carbon Manufacturing dioxide emissions in the cement industry. Municipal Utility Includes energy efficiency programs,renewable portfolio standard, Strategies combined heat and power,and transitioning away from carbon intensive generation. Alternative Fuels: Increasing the use of non-petroleum fuels in California's transportation non-Petroleum sector,as recommended in the CEC's 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Fuels Policy Reports. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (PUC) Accelerated The Governor has set a goal of achieving 33 percent renewables in the Renewable State's resource mix by 2020.The joint PUC/Energy Commission Portfolio Standard September 2005 Energy Action Plan II(EAP II)adopts the 33 percent goal. (33 percent by 2020) California Solar The solar initiative includes installation of 1 million solar roofs or an Initiative equivalent 3,000 MW by 2017 on homes and businesses,increased use of solar thermal systems to offset the increasing demand for natural gas,use of advanced metering in solar applications,and creation of a funding source that can provide rebates over 10 years through a declining incentive schedule. Investor-Owned This strategy includes energy efficiency programs,combined heat and power Utility initiative,and electricity sector carbon policy for investor owned utility. Periodically Review the Interim GHG Significance Threshold SCAQMD staff will periodically review and revise staffs GHG proposal to incorporate applicable updated information on GHGs and GHG reduction strategies resulting from regulatory requirements or advances in technology. Some areas of the current proposal that may be reevaluated include the tier 3 screening levels, and the tier 4 compliance option 1 GHG reduction target objective. Further, staff will evaluate whether or not sector based performance standards can be developed for tier 4 compliance option 3. If a statewide GHG significance threshold is developed by CARB, staff will review that threshold and report to the Governing Board by March 2009 considering such a 5-5 October 2008 Page 1545 Chapter 5—Conclusion threshold for adoption.regarding any implementation issues and ways to transition into the recommended GHG significance threshold within six months of formal approval by the CARB Board. 5-6 October 2008 Page 1546 REFERENCES Page 1547 References Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2007. White Paper on Global Climate Change—Final Version. June 2007 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008. California Air Resources Board(CARB). 2007. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. December 2007. California Air Resources Board(CARB). 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan A Framework for Change. October 2008. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2001. Trip Generation Handbook An ITE Recommended Practice (7th ed.). March 2001. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. Climate Change 2007— Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Group Ito the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007b. Climate Change 2007- The Physical Science Basis. IPCC Plenary XXVII (Valencia, Spain, 12-17 November 2007). South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). 2004. Best Available Control Technology Guidelines. July 2004. (http://www.aqmd.gov/bact/partd7-9-2004update.pdf) References- 1 October 2008 Page 1548 APPENDIX A WORKING GROUP MEMBERS AND CONTRIBUTORS Page 1549 Appendix A Working Group Members and Contributors WORKING GROUP MEMBERS AND AFFILIATION: Greg M Adams Los Angeles County Sanitation District James Arnone Latham and Watkins Jonathan Evans Center for Biological Diversity Doug T. Feremenga San Bernardino County Land Use Planning Department Mark Grey Building Industry Association(BIA)of Southern California Gretchen Hardison City of Los Angeles,Environmental Affairs Mike Harrod Riverside County Planning Department Michael Hendrix Association of Environmental Professionals Thomas Jelenic Port of Long Beach Ruby Maldonado Orange County Planning Department Bill La Marr California Small Business Alliance Julia Lester Dairies/California Farmers Bureau Shari Libicki Green Developers Coalition Lena Maun-DeSantis Port of Los Angeles Daniel Mc Givney Southern California Alliance of Public Owned Treatment Works Clayton Miller Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition(CIAQC) Jonathan Nadler Southern California Association of Governments Peter Okurowski California Environmental Associates Bill Piazza Los Angeles Unified School District Bill Quinn California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB) Cathy Reheis-Boyd Western States Petroleum Association Janill L Richards California Department of Justice,Public Rights Division,Environment Section Jamesine Rogers California Air Resources Board(CARB) Terry Roberts Office of Planning and Research(OPR) David Somers City of Los Angeles-Planning Debbie Stevens Refineries Jocelyn Thompson Weston, Benshoof,Rochefort,Rubalcava,MacCuish Attorneys at Law Carla Walecka Realtors Committee on Air Quality(RCAQ) Lee Wallace The Gas Company INVITED AS MEMBERS BUT HAVE NOT ATTENDED: Rick Bishop Western Riverside Council of Governments Adrene K Briones City of Los Angeles, LADWP Rick Cameron Port of Long Beach Bahram Fazeli Communities for a Better Environment(CBE) Daniel Fierros Los Angeles County Regional Planning, Impacts Analysis Section Timothy Grabiel Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC) Andrea M Hricko USC Keck School of Medicine,Environmental Health Sciences Center Angela Johnson Meszaras California Environmental Rights Alliance Janea Scott Environmental Defense Fund Martin Shlageter Coalition for Clean Air(CCA) Bryan Speegle Orange County Planning Department A- 1 October 2008 Page 1550 Appendix A Working Group Members and Contributors ALTERNATES AND AFFILIATION: Jeannie Blakeslee CARB Frank Caponi Los Angeles County Sanitation District Andrew Cheung Los Angeles Unified School District Mark Elliott CCEEB Jay Golida Los Angeles Unified School District Andy Henderson BIA of Southern California Carrie Hyke San Bernardino County Land Use Planning Department Michael Lewis CIAQC John Pastore Southern California Alliance of Public Owned Treatment Works Sharon Rubalcava Weston,Benshoof,Rochefort,Rubalcava,MacCuish Attorneys at Law Andrew Skanchy Latham and Watkins Justis Stewart SCAG Allyson Teramoto Port of Long Beach Cindy Thielman-Braun Riverside County Planning Department Matt Vespa Center for Biological Diversity Michael Wang WSPA INTERESTED PARTIES: Lysa Aposhian Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles Gregory K Arifian MWH Americas Inc Leila Barker LADWP Jack Bean Tesoro Joe Becca Universal Studios Aaron Dean Burdick ICF International Curtis L. Coleman Law Offices of Curtis L. Coleman Keith Cooper ICF Jones& Stokes Kris Flaig LA Bureau of Sanitation,Department of Public Works,Regulatory Affairs Howard D Gollay Southern California Edison Bill Gorham ENSR Consulting and Engineering Jay Grady California Portland Cement Co. Patrick Griffith Los Angeles Unified School District Tony Held ICF, Jones & Stokes Miles T. Heller BP Jonathan A. Hershey City of Los Angeles Vijaya Jammalamadaka Santa Barbara County APCD Stephen L Jenkins Michael Brandman Associates Robert Jenne CARB Diana Kitching LA City Depat ttnent of Planning Chandra Knott City of Irvine Vladimir Kogan Orange County Sanitation District,Air Quality& Special Projects Div. Leslie Krinsk CARB Martin Ledwitz Southern California Edison Rina Leung City of Rancho Cucamonga Serena Lin Environmental Defense Fund Allen Lind CCEEB Sung Key Ma Riverside County Waste Management Department Josh Margolis Cantor Cole A-2 October 2008 Page 1551 Appendix A Working Group Members and Contributors Marty Meisler Metropolitan Water District Denise Michelson BP Vince Mirabella Michael Brandman Associates Danielle K Morone Gatzke Dillon&Ballance LLP Pang Mueller Tesoro Refining&Marketing Co-Los Angeles Refinery Krishna Nand City of Vernon Jan Nguyen Exxon Mobil Maurice Oillataguerre City of Glendale Public Works Dept. Lynn Perkinton URS Corp. Haseeb Qureshi Urban Crossroads Ron Ricks BP Leonard Scandura San Joaquin Valley APCD Darren W Stroud Valero Energy Corporation Ryan Taylor Brian F. Associates Greg Tholen Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) Dave Vintze BAAQMD Sarah Weldon California Environmental Associates Darcy Wheeles California Environmental Associates Janet Whittich CCEEB A.L. Wilson Southern California Edison Cori Wilson Michael Brandman Associates Lisa Wunder The Port of Los Angeles Robert A Wyman Jr. Latham&Watkins Rick Zbur Latham&Watkins Michael H Zischke Cox Castle&Nicholson LLP A-3 October 2008 Page 1552 APPENDIX B SUMMARIES OF WORKING GROUP MEETINGS Page 1553 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings WORKING GROUP MEETING #1 (APRIL 30, 2008) At the first Working Group meeting SCAQMD staff presented the Working Group with a number of policy objectives and design criteria for consideration to establish the framework for developing a GHG significance threshold. Policy objectives include the following concepts. First, the GHG significance threshold should minimize environmental degradation, that is, it should not make impacts worse. To this end, it may be useful to develop a GHG significance threshold that achieves GHG emissions reductions that are consistent with the goals of AB 32 estimated to be approximately 30 percent reduction of GHG emissions from business-as-usual. Although CEQA or a GHG significance threshold established pursuant to CEQA may be useful tools in reducing GHG emissions, they would act in parallel with regulatory requirements, e.g., AB 32, but they do not replace them. As a result, there is no requirement that a GHG significance threshold must reduce GHG emissions consistent with AB 32 or EO S-3-05. In addition to policy considerations, a number of GHG significance threshold design criteria were also considered. An important consideration in developing a GHG significance threshold is the potential administrative burden it may create on lead agencies through increased resource impacts such as increased costs and staff if the significance threshold is established too low. For example, a zero threshold might result in eliminating or substantially reducing the number of projects that qualify for a categorical exemption, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration. Other design considerations discussed included establishing a single GHG threshold, such as a "bright line" numerical threshold or multiple thresholds, such as the tiered approaches identified by CAPCOA, etc. WORKING GROUP MEETING #2 (MAY 28, 2008) At the second Working Group meeting, staff presented design criteria recommendations based on the discussion at the first Working Group meeting and correspondence received subsequent to the first Working Group meeting. With regard to analyzing life cycle GHG emissions, staff's initial recommendation was to exclude an analysis of life cycle emissions because life cycle process are not well established. Instead, the GHG emissions analysis should focus on direct and indirect impacts, consistent with current CEQA requirements (CEQA Guidelines §15064(d)). Feedback from the Working Group suggested that a CEQA analysis may be considered deficient without making an effort to conduct a life cycle analysis. Further, if life cycle emissions data are not available, the lead agency should note this consider further analysis speculative and terminate the discussion(CEQA Guidelines §15145). Another design criteria recommendation made by staff was to take into consideration the administrative burden and resources impacts when establishing a GHG significance threshold. Staff recommended that the GHG significance threshold B- 1 October 2008 Page 1554 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings should not be set too low, which could result in all projects going through the EIR process. It was pointed out that requiring an EIR for all projects does not necessarily result in more mitigation, no meaningful mitigation may be available for small projects, and it may provide a disincentive for implementing mitigation if the measures are unable to reduce GHG impacts to less than significant. Other design criteria recommended by staff included analyzing the six Kyoto GHGs, any GHG significance threshold established would be considered interim and would be periodically evaluated and updated as necessary, etc. Staff also introduced the concept of preferred GHG mitigation strategies using a hierarchy from the most to least preferred strategies as shown below. 1. Incorporate GHG reduction strategies into project design 2. Mitigate GHGs from other onsite sources for modification projects 3. Mitigate offsite GHG emission reduction projects 4. Mitigate both construction& operational GHG impacts 5. Consider feasible mitigation based on economic factors (cost) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15364 6. Purchase acceptable GHG offsets with preference toward GHG reduction projects occurring in-basin or in-state (offset cost a consideration). The following points should be considered: a. Offset market still developing, so it is necessary to ensure offsets are obtained from a credible source b. Offsets should be provided for at least 10 years of project operation (see SJVAPCD indirect source Rule 9510 §6.2 mitigation requirements) Finally, SCAQMD staff introduced the initial staff proposal. The initial staff proposal consisted of a tiered approach, similar to CAPCOA's Approach 2 with mandatory GHG mitigation measures. Each tier of this proposal is briefly described in the following bullet points and shown graphically in Figure B-1. • The first tier consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. For example, SB 97 specifically exempts a limited number of projects until it expires in 2010. If the project qualifies for an exemption, no further action is required. If the project does not qualify for an exemption, then move to the next tier. B-2 October 2008 Page 1555 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings Figure B-1 Initial Staff Proposal—Proposed Tiered Approach—May 28, 2008 Significance determination of Cumulative Impacts from GHG emissions: Applicable Exemptions, if any ► No Further YES NO Demonstrate Consistency with GHG Component of Local General Plan'OR equivalent regional approach 1 NO Construction Operation YES Early Stationary Land Use/Indirect Sources Compliance Source(new or Predetermined Mitigation with AB32 modified)— Package by Sector(over) measures(e.g. Carbon low carbon fuel BARCT/ � 1 standard) BACT 2 Residential Commercial Industrial Mitigated to Not Significant YES NO Quantify Residual GHG Emissions; Implement Offsite YES Mitigation and/or Offsets Mitigating GHG Emissions to Zero NO Significant 1. Local General Plans,at a minimum,must comply with AB32 reduction goals;have been analyzed under CEQA,and have a certified Final CEQA document;emission estimates approved by CARB or SCAQMD;include a GHG inventory tracking mechanism;and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if AB32 goals are not met. 2. SCAQMD will work with CAPCOA to develop a list of mitigation measures. B-3 October 2008 Page 1556 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings • The second tier consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that is part of a local general plan for example. The GHG reduction plan must, at a minimum, comply with AB 32 reduction goals; include emission estimates approved by CARB or SCAQMD, have been analyzed under CEQA, and have a certified Final CEQA document. Further, the GHG reduction plan must include a GHG inventory tracking mechanism; process to monitor progress in achieving GHG emission reduction targets, and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if AB 32 goals are not met (enforcement). If the proposed project is consistent with the local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. The concept of consistency with a GHG reduction plan, is similar to the concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines §15125(d). If the proposed project does not comply with the local GHG reduction plan or no GHG reduction plan has been adopted, then move to the third tier. • Under the third tier there are three options that can be used to demonstrate that a project would not have significant emissions. The first significance option is early compliance with AB 32 Scoping Plan measures. The second significance option, primarily for stationary source equipment, would be to install carbon best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) or best available control technology (BACT). Carbon BARCT/BACT would be established by the SCAQMD. The third significance option for industrial, commercial, and residential land use projects would be to implement a menu of prescribed mitigation measures. Mitigation measures would be developed for each land use sector by SCAQMD staff. Implementing one of these three options would result in a determination that GHG emission impacts from the proposed project are not significant. If the proposed project is unable to implement any one of these three options or cannot fully implement any option, then it would move to the fourth tier. • Under the fourth tier, the lead agency would quantify GHG emissions from the project and implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets. Under this tier, GHG emission impacts the lead agency would be required to mitigate or offset GHG emissions to zero. If GHG emissions can be offset to zero, GHG emissions from the project are concluded to be insignificant. If GHG impacts cannot be reduced to zero, the project is concluded to be significant for GHGs. WORKING GROUP MEETING #3 (JUNE 19, 2008) Subsequent to Working Group meeting #2, SCAQMD staff received feedback on the initial staff proposal. Issues and concerns raised by the stakeholders on the initial staff proposal were addressed at the third Working Group meeting and are summarized in the following bullet points. • The staff proposal does not explicitly state any quantitative or qualitative target objectives. If there are no explicit target objectives, how is it possible to determine whether or not a project is insignificant for GHG emissions? B-4 October 2008 Page 1557 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings • Concerns were raised regarding the lack of detail relative to the sector-specific mitigation measures and the potentially lengthy lag time between implementing the GHG significance threshold and developing the mitigation measures. • For most projects, GHG emissions would not need to be calculated as long as the prescribed menu of sector-specific mitigation measures is implemented. Without quantifying GHG emissions and the control efficiencies of the mitigation measures, a project would be vulnerable to a "Fair Argument" that GHG emissions are still significant even after implementing prescribed mitigation measures. • A CEQA document may be vulnerable in court if control efficiencies of mitigation measures are not identified. • Is the staff proposal really a zero GHG significance? Based on Working Group feedback, staff presented revised staff proposal #1, which consisted of a tiered decision tree approach. The components of revised staff proposal #1 are described in the following bullet points and shown graphically in Figure B-2. As shown in Figure B-2, some of the tier components of the revised staff proposal are similar to those in the initial staff proposal. • Tier 1 —no change from the initial proposal. • Tier 2 — is a new component of the revised staff proposal. Tier 2 attempts to identify small projects that would not likely contribute to significant cumulative GHG impacts. The de minimis or screening level of 900 metric tons per year is the level that is estimated by CAPCOA to capture 90 percent of the residential units or office space in pending application lists7. CAPCOA infers that projects that emit less than 900 metric ton per year would not likely be considered cumulatively considerable. Further, the 900 metric ton per year level would capture 90 percent 7 Although the CAPCOA White Paper implies that 900 metric tons per year equates to a 90 percent capture rate, there is no explicit information provided in the White Paper that demonstrates this correlation. Indeed, the CAPCOA authors state that 900 metric tons, which represents approximately 50 residential units, corresponds to widely divergent capture rate percentile rankings depending on the project location (see discussion on page 43 of the White Paper). Percentile rankings were based on a survey of four cities in California. A project of 900 metric tons per year representing a 90 percent capture rate appears to be a working assumption for which there appears to be no factual basis. Further, although not explicitly stated, it is assumed that the 900 metric tons were derived using the URBEMIS2007 model. It should be noted that that the URBEMIS2007 model only quantifies CO2 emissions and direct emissions primarily from on-road mobile sources. It does not capture other GHG pollutants or indirect GHG emissions such as emissions from energy generation, water conveyance, etc. Therefore, it is likely that a 50-unit residential project would actually generate higher GHG emissions than 900 metric tons per year. B-5 October 2008 Page 1558 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings Figure B-2 Revised Staff Proposal#1 Tiered Decision Tree Approach—June 19, 2008 Significance Determination of Cumulative Impacts from GHG Emissions: PROPOSED PROJECT No Further Tier 1:Applicable Exemptions, if any YES ► Action NO V Tier 2:Project's Incremental GHG Emission Increase Below a De Minimis Level or Mitigated to less than the De Minimis Level(e.g.,900 MT/year CO2eq) 1 NO YES Compliance Option 1: Uniform Percent Emission Reduction Target Objective(e.g., 40 percent)from BAU By Incorporating Project Design Features and/or Implementing Mitigation Measures. Less Than Tier 3: YES Significant Decision Compliance Option 2:Early Implementation Tree ► of Applicable AB32 Scoping Plan Measures YES Options' Compliance Option 3: Offsets alone or in combination ► with the above to achieve target objective. YE ► Compliance Option 4: GHG Emissions within GHG YES Budgets in approved regional plans2(similar to consistency per existing CEQA Guidelines NO §§15064(h)(3), 15125(d), 15130(d)or 15152(a)). Significant 1. Substitution for equivalent reductions allowed. 2. Local General Plans or other local plans local plans that,at a minimum,comply with the overall target objective or the sector-based CARB Scoping Plan;have been analyzed under CEQA,and have a certified Final CEQA document;emission estimates approved by CARB or SCAQMD;include a GHG inventory;tracking mechanism;enforcement;and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if commitments are not met. B-6 October 2008 Page 1559 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings of all pending projects, which means that 90 percent of all projects would have to implement GHG reduction measures. If a project is less than 900 MT/year CO2eq or can mitigate to less than 900 MT/year CO2eq, it would be considered insignificant for GHGs. Projects larger than 900 MT/year CO2eq would move to tier 3. • Tier 3 Decision Tree Options — consists of four decision tree options to demonstrate that a project is not significant for GHG emissions. The four compliance options are as follows. Compliance Option 1 — the lead agency would calculate GHG emissions for a project using a business-as-usual (BAU) methodology. Once GHG emissions are calculated, the project proponent would have to incorporate design features into the project and/or implement GHG mitigation measures to demonstrate a 40 percent reduction from BAU. A 40 percent reduction below BAU was selected for the following reason. To comply with the AB 32 requirement of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels, an approximately 30 percent reduction from current BAU is necessary. Since CEQA is not applicable to all GHG emission sources, i.e., existing projects that are not undergoing expansion or modifications, staff chose a 40 percent reduction below BAU requirement, which goes beyond the target GHG reduction objective of AB 32, but is still a potentially feasible GHG reduction for a variety of different projects. Compliance Option 2 — this option is the same as the early compliance with AB 32 option in the third tier of the initial staff proposal. Compliance Option 3 — this option is similar to the fourth tier of the initial staff proposal where GHG emissions would be reduced through offsite GHG reduction projects and/or use of offsets. This compliance option, however, would require offsetting GHG emissions by the same target objective as compliance option 1, that is, 40 percent below BAU instead of reducing GHG emissions to less than the de minimis or screening level. Compliance Option 4 — this option is the same as the consistency with the greenhouse gas reduction plan component in the second tier of the initial staff proposal. If the lead agency or project proponent cannot implement any of the compliance options in Tier 3, GHG emissions would be considered significant. WORKING GROUP MEETING #4 (JULY 30, 2008) Subsequent to Working Group meeting #3, SCAQMD staff received feedback on the revised staff proposal #1. Issues and concerns raised by the stakeholders on the initial B-7 October 2008 Page 1560 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings staff proposal were addressed at the third Working Group meeting and are summarized in the following bullet points. • Compliance with a GHG reduction plan should not be a compliance option in Tier 3, but should be its own tier, earlier in the tiering process. • There is a large disconnect between screening level and remaining emissions under the Tier 4 compliance options. For example, large projects that can reduce GHG emissions by the target objective of 40 percent would do so, which means GHG emissions would not be significant, could have substantially higher emissions than projects with GHG emissions less than the screening level. • Compliance with a target objective should not be through offsets alone. Because of the uncertainties regarding the validity of offsets, preferred mitigation should consist of actual GHG emission reductions. • The Tier 3 compliance option 1, GHG emissions reductions from BAU, is not the proper metric for determining significance. How can a lead agency be sure that the projected BAU emissions for a project are not artificially inflated to make it easier to achieve the required target objective? • The Tier 3 compliance option 1, reducing GHG emission reductions from BAU, could penalize projects in environmentally progressive areas where BAU may be much lower than in other areas, thus, making it more difficult to achieve the target objectives. Based on Working Group feedback and internal discussions, staff presented revised staff proposal #2, which further refined the previous tiered decision tree approach. The components of revised staff proposal #2 are described in the following bullet points and shown graphically in Figure B-3. As shown in Figure B-3, some of the tier components of the revised staff proposal are similar to those in the initial staff proposal. • Tier 1 —no change from the initial proposal. • Tier 2—compliance option 4 in Tier 3 has been moved back a stand-alone tier. • Tier 3 — the screening level that was previously Tier 2 has been moved to Tier 3. In response to feedback from the Working Group, the screening level has been increased to 6,500 MT/year CO2eq. The new screening level was derived using the SCAQMD's existing NOx operational threshold as a basis. The daily NOx operational significance threshold, 55 pounds per day was annualized, which results in 10 tons of NOx per year. Using the URBEMIS2007 model, staff initially modeled a mixed-use project that emits just under 10 tons per year to determine what the equivalent CO2 emissions would be. Resulting CO2 emissions from the mixed use project were approximately 6,500 MT/year CO2. To further corroborate the 6,500 MT/year CO2 staff performed 19 modeling runs on a variety of projects including residential, commercial, industrial, and various combinations of land uses. In addition, since the analysis was an annual B-8 October 2008 Page 1561 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings analysis, a weighted trip rate was derived for each land use category to obtain a more accurate estimate of trip rates throughout the week. Although the results from the 19 modeling runs were approximately 16 percent higher than staffs original estimate of 6,500 MT/year CO2, 7,304 to 7,723 MT/year CO2, staff continued to recommend the 6,500 MT/year CO2 provides a margin of safety when deriving CO2 emissions based on the annualized NOx level of 10 tons per year and when evaluating different types of land use projects. Projects with GHG emissions less than the screening level are considered to be small projects, that is, they would not likely be considered cumulatively considerable. However, because of the magnitude of increasing global temperatures from current and future GHG emissions, staff recommended that all projects must implement some measure or measures to contribute to reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, Tier 3 includes a requirement that all projects with GHG emissions less than the screening level must include efficiency components that reduce to a certain percentage beyond the requirements of Title 24 (Part 6, California Code of Regulations), California's energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. • Tier 4 Performance Standards — Tier 3 from the revised staff proposal #1 has been moved to Tier 4 and renamed. B-9 October 2008 Page 1562 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings Figure B-3 Proposed Tiered Decision Tree Approach—July 30, 2008 Significance Determination of Cumulative Impacts from GHG Emissions: PROPOSED PROJECT • Tier 1:Applicable Exemptions, if any No Further Action YES NO • Tier 2: GHG Emissions within GHG Budgets in approved regional plans' (similar to consistency per existing CEQA Guidelines§§15064(h)(3), 15125(d), 15130(d)or 15152(a)). NO YES • Tier 3: GHG Emissions Incremental Increase Below,or Mitigated to Less than the Significance Screening Level(e.g., 6,500 MT/year CO2eq)and x Percent Beyond Title 24. NO ♦ Option#1: Uniform Percent Emission Reduction YES 4- Target Objective(e.g.,30 percent)from BAU by Incorporating Project Design Features and/or Less Than Implementing Emission Reduction Measures. YES Significant Tier 4: for GHGs Option#2:Early Implementation of Applicable YES Performance 4 ► AB32 Scoping Plan Measures2. Standards Option#3:Achieve sector-based standard(e.g., 0 Bounds Her person.Hounds Her sauare foot.etc.). YES NO Tier 5: Offsets alone or in combination with the above to achieve target YES significance screening level. Offsets provided for 30-year project life,unless project life limited by permit,lease,or other legally binding conditions. NO Significant 1. Local General Plans or other local plans local plans that,at a minimum,comply with the overall target objective or the sector-based CARB Scoping Plan;have been analyzed under CEQA,and have a certified Final CEQA document;emission estimates approved by CARB or SCAQMD;include a GHG inventory; tracking mechanism;enforcement;and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if commitments are not met. 2. Substitution for equivalent reductions allowed. B- 10 October 2008 Page 1563 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings Compliance Option 1 — is essentially the same as the previously recommended, except that the target objective has been changed from reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below BAU to 30 percent below BAU to be more consistent with AB 32 target objectives. Compliance Option 2 -—no change from the previous proposal. Compliance Option 3 — this is a new compliance option and consists of establishing sector-based performance standards. For example, it may be possible to use the 1990 inventory required under AB32 to establish an efficiency standard such as pounds per person, pounds per worker, pounds per square feet, pounds per item manufactured, etc. When calculating GHGs from a project, if they are less than the established efficiency standard the project would not be significant relative to GHG emissions, while projects exceeding the efficiency standard would be significant. Projects that cannot comply with any of the compliance options in Tier 4 would then move on to Tier 5. • Tier 5 — consists generally of the Tier 3 compliance option 3 from the previous staff proposal. The only difference is that the project proponent would be required to provide offsets for the life of the project, which is defined as 30 years. If the project proponent is unable to obtain sufficient offsets, incorporate design features, or implement GHG reduction mitigation measures, then GHG emissions from the project would be considered significant. WORKING GROUP MEETING #5 (AUGUST 27, 2008) Subsequent to Working Group meeting #3, SCAQMD staff received feedback on the revised staff proposal #2. Issues and concerns raised by the stakeholders on the initial staff proposal were addressed at the third Working Group meeting and are summarized in the following bullet points. • A recommendation was made to modify the target objective of Tier 5 to be consistent with the target objective of Tier 4 compliance option 1, that is require emissions to be offset 30 percent from BAU rather than offset down to the screening level. • A Working Group member asked for clarification on the early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures in Tier 4-Option 2. In addition, a question was asked regarding whether or not this compliance option was applicable after the requirements of AB 32 have become effective. At Working Group meeting #5, staff presented revised staff proposal #3, which consisted primarily of minor refinements to the previous tiered decision tree approach B- 11 October 2008 Page 1564 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings in revised staff proposal #2. The components of revised staff proposal #3 are shown graphically in Figure B-4. Aside from changing the graphic layout of the staff proposal to make it easier to understand, revised staff proposal #3 has only one minor modification. A second energy efficiency requirement has been added to the screening level in Tier 3. In addition to requiring projects to go a certain percentage beyond Title 24, projects would also have to reduce by a specified percentage electricity demand from water use, primarily electricity used for water conveyance. B- 12 October 2008 Page 1565 Appendix B Summaries of Working Group Meetings Figure B-4 Revised Staff Proposal#3 Tiered Decision Tree Approach—August 27, 2008 Draft AQMD Staff C EGA Greenhouse Gas Sig nifl canes Threshold 1 . Irk Gam■Firm in A*me 14 1Ja 17111a.r:a wi. clEST anp,MO Ira cm ay.layr Y:ay ra a ha a.ac#sl =4I11:1 Sniping AMR Iran}an ara}ad rue:CCCA sac MO Sa+a■cm.me r Tal CL 4k±arrwn RmIr1 askrcr ra lialJit i.c.dtrrE+PCcie= E,ii aa,�110iv.wl.l %a ma.ama mar a+1 orow 1rt.Err a Wiwi um r=b +rr.q era■ra anrv.F �Tf lr um rvPrEl Inil Tc+#M<fi—rFilmr.1 Mk J. 'z+R+aa I=.µGran Wi:Iaa■mod er I TIiFSL GM itIcrs,a fl1It Id Er}In.wami pd.4ms.lnd l4 cca■rrlq Fr a.rcp Jl Oadafm 10.1rG0Y4.14'k.IUIi_1 i 161J: m ISI!. tll f r.J - Iis,t. lima•a ET=la Roam. � � r{ L.amhr .Qfmr Doi PI Lai.L'A.'ILD , } '1 OLFa tH EMI Laymil T1. :b P lam Irai+aian Ir=a.1•27 II_ Thlr JL NM Erma'cm mIN Wm!Ill: Mein real lam Mai IYZE=srSYI pi t*da %NT.%armory n n 6F1i b r'c•J p F 4 yIgr ra RAN mks F'71r'ari+;Ell in c. —Nilu Mirlam al E.i I 7Iplill rair•d i 47l/a .1 LC.7 rc rp P .Waa_vr - 1»1 f .iTr..mac.: .u.d ratalai.I.t.E . tdpral prici pd.•C+IY kid a-4 il rr 1 ..i Chair a4r r arbrrm alwatln+ II,it .in ao.ray tim almla,7nalds1 b )-yra:ri:. rria 1ri.r p I. 9 Tani by arr•'Iaaa a o1a•ELEA% 1 aniri c.=:..,: 1 r I + 4 I h1�IG4hF I`II.Ik1IliUh d 1- a) w Ilfa'r- CO CD 01 rn rn B - 13 October 2008 Exhibit D AQMD Working Group Minutes Exhibit D -1- Page 1567 Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15 Tuesday, September 28, 2010 AiM❑ SCAQMD, Room GB, 10:00 AM— 12:00 PM 1. Welcome and Introductions Dr. Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer of SCAQMD's Planning Rule Development and Area Sources Division, called the meeting to order at 10:10 A.M. and asked for self introductions of the working group members and SCAQMD staff. Dr. Chang then presented an overview of the meeting agenda. 2. Review of Significance Threshold Approach Mr. Mike Krause, Program Supervisor of the CEQA Special Projects section in SCAQMD's Planning Rule Development and Area Sources Division, provided a summary of SCAQMD staff's proposed GHG significance threshold approach, shown in the following bullet points: • Tier I—Exemptions, e.g., categorical, statutory, etc. • Tier II—Consistency with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan • Tier III—Numerical Screening Thresholds Mr. Krause reminded the group that on December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a numerical GHG significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. Staff is now proposing to extend the industrial GHG significance threshold for use by all lead agencies. Similarly, with regard to numerical residential/commercial GHG significance thresholds, at the 11/19/2009 stakeholder working group meeting staff presented two options that lead agencies could choose: option #1 — separate numerical thresholds for residential projects (3,500 MTCO2e/year), commercial projects (1,400 MTCO2e/year), and mixed use projects (3,000 MTCO2e/year) and; option #2 — a single numerical threshold for all non- industrial projects of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. If a lead agency chooses one option, it must consistently use that same option for all projects where it is lead agency. The current staff proposal is to recommend the use of option #2, but allow lead agencies to choose option#1 if they prefer that approach. • Tier IV—Performance Standards o Option 1 —Percent Emission Reduction Target SCAQMD staff has no recommendation regarding this approach at this time. Instead, if lead agencies enquire about using this approach, staff would reference the GHG significance approach recommended by San Joaquin Valley APCD and describe some of the challenges of using this approach. o Option 2—Early Implementation of Applicable Measures—this option has been folded into option 3. o Option 3 —Sector-based Standard Page 1568 Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting#15 Dr. Elaine Chang presented information on the currently proposed Tier IV performance standards. Option 3 has been modified to incorporate the Bay Area AQMD's concept of efficiency-based threshold for two target dates: 2020 and 2035. Relative to the 2020 target date, staff agrees with the methodology for establishing the efficiency threshold value of 6.6 MTCO2/yr for plans because this number is based on statewide service population (SP) in 2020. With regard to the project level efficiency threshold SCAQMD staff took a slightly different approach than BAAQMD. To derive the project level efficiency threshold of 4.6, it appears that BAAQMD took the 2020 statewide GHG reduction target for land use only (295,530,000 MTCO2e/yr) and divided it by the total 2020 statewide SP (population plus employment) (44,135,923 + 20,194,661), i.e., (295,530,000 MTCO2e/yr)/(44,135,923 + 20,194,661) = 4.6 MTCO2e/yr. SCAQMD staff believes that instead of using total 2020 statewide employment for all sectors, this approach should have used total 2020 statewide employment for the land use sectors only (17,064,489). If you use total 2020 statewide employment for land use sectors instead of total 2020 statewide employment for all sectors as BAAQMD did, your local project efficiency threshold becomes: (295,530,000 MTCO2e/yr)/( 44,135,923 + 17,064,489) =4.8 MTCO2e/yr. Relative to the 2035 target date, this target date was selected to be consistent with the GHG reduction target date of SB375. Overall, GHG reductions by the SB 375 target date of 2035 would be approximately 40 percent. This 40 percent reduction was applied to the 2020 targets, resulting in an efficiency threshold for plans of 4.1 MTCO2e/yr and an efficiency threshold at the project level of 3.0 MTCO2e/yr. • Tier V—Mitigation: CEQA Offsets—no changes. A question was asked whether or not a project must be less than or equal to both the 2020 and 2035 efficiency threshold in order to be considered insignificant. Staff responded yes. Another stakeholder asked if the lead agency could take credit for GHG design features when determining the significance of GHG impacts. Staff responded yes. Staff was asked whether or not they had looked at any test cases to see if projects could meet the 2035 efficiency threshold. Staff responded that no test cases were evaluated. However, it may be likely that projects can achieve the 2035 efficiency threshold because the SB375 target GHG reductions are expected to be met primarily through cleaner fleets as a result of fleet turnover and reducing VMT. Consequently, fleet turnover plus a small increment of GHG reductions from land use projects could potentially achieve the 2035 efficiency threshold. A comment was made that by establishing a GHG significance threshold for both 2020 and 2035, a lead agency would have to continuing mitigating GHG emission impacts for 40 years, which is equivalent to establishing a reasonably available control technology (RACT) rule. Dr. Chang responded that by establishing the 2035 efficiency threshold, to reduce potential GHG impacts to less than significant, the lead agency and project proponent may need to "sharpen their pencils" to identify mitigation measures to remain less than significant. The staff proposal is not considered to be equivalent to a RACT rule because a 2 Page 1569 Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting#15 project could exceed the 2020 and or 2035 efficiency threshold, but still be approved and built. A comment was made that exceeding the target efficiency threshold is not just a question of going through the CEQA process, which would require preparation of an EIR, feasible mitigation measures, alternatives, etc. The lead agency would have to approve a project with significant impacts, make findings, and prepare a statement of overriding considerations. In this situation there is legal vulnerability to a certain extent. A question was asked about how to treat projects where GHG impacts from VMT are a small part of the project. Dr. Chang responded that for this type of project, the lead agency and/or project proponent would have to look at other measures or design features to reduce impacts to less than the 2020 and 2035 efficiency threshold. For these types of projects, it may be difficult to achieve the target efficiency threshold. A comment was made that the SCAQMD's approach to Tier IV option one, that is, no recommendation, but discuss challenges, implies opposition to this approach. This perceived opposition could jeopardize the Tier II approach, which relies on consistency with a GHG reduction plan. GHG reduction plans will likely rely on a percent GHG reduction to achieve some future target, e.g., AB 32 2020 GHG reduction targets. Although there may be some issues with the percent reduction approach, e.g., gaming the system, there may be valid reasons for using this approach, so the SCAQMD should not discourage it. Another participant suggested that perhaps the SCAQMD could simply say that staff has not sufficiently evaluated this approach and will evaluate the appropriateness of this option on a case-by-case basis. A comment was made that using SB 375 targets may require GHG reductions that go beyond what would be required in sustainable community strategies (SCSs) and alternative planning strategies (APSs). Further, SB 375 is primarily related to reducing GHG emissions from mobile sources, so establishing 2035 efficiency threshold based only on SB 375 ignores the GHG emission effects from AB 32 (CARB's Scoping Plan). SB 375 relies primarily on process or incentives to reduce GHG emissions rather than mandates. SB 375 also relaxes state requirements to update Housing Elements from five to eight years. CARB's Scoping Plan has provisions for updating the GHG reduction targets every four or eight years, which would provide more flexibility in developing future target efficiency threshold. For this reason and the fact that the Scoping Plan addresses GHG emission reductions from various land use sectors, it may be more appropriated to rely on the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB in the Scoping Plan for developing future target efficiency threshold. A question was asked whether or not a lead agency could use GHG emission offsets to achieve the target efficiency threshold. Staff responded that there did not seem to be a downside to using offsets to get below the target efficiency threshold. A request was made for SCAQMD staff to eliminate the maximum GHG limit proposal that was discussed at the November 19, 2009 stakeholder working group meeting. Any projects that exceed the maximum GHG limit would be considered significant, even though they 3 Page 1570 Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting#15 achieved or are less than the target efficiency threshold. Staff stated that they were no longer including the maximum limit in the staff proposal. A suggestion was made that the SCAQMD should not move forward with the efficiency threshold approach because lead agencies in the Bay Area are encountering a number of serious issues using this approach. In addition, because of the way the efficiency threshold is derived, it may inhibit proposals for mixed use projects rather than encourage them. 3. Other Topics None. 4. Next Steps A question was asked regarding when staff expected to bring the current GHG proposals to the Governing Board for consideration. Staff responded that the hope was to bring the proposals to the Board by December 2010. However, this schedule will depend on any feedback from the working group and necessary changes to the current proposals. In addition, the guidance document prepared for the numerical industrial GHG significance threshold needs to be revised and updated to reflect the current proposals. 5. Closing Remarks The meeting ended at approximately 11:00 a.m. The next meeting is scheduled for August 26, 2009 in meeting room GB at 10:00 AM. 6. Other Business None. MEMBERS PRESENT (11) Greg Adams—City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation James Arnone—Latham&Watkins Doug Feremenga— San Bernardino County Land Use Planning Department Michael Hendrix—Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) Shari Libicki, Green Developers Coalition (on conference call) Debbie Stevens—Refineries Cindy Thielman—Riverside County Planning Department Jocelyn Thompson- Alston Matt Vespa—Center for Biological Diversity(CBD) (on conference call) Carla Walecka—Realtors Committee on Air Quality(RCAQ) Lee Wallace—Sempra Energy Utilities OTHERS PRESENT (7) Lilia Barker—LADWP (on conference call) 4 Page 1571 Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting#15 Patrick Griffith—County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Mark Hagmann—Matrix (on conference call) Sung Key Ma—Riverside County Waste Management Department Vince Mirabella—Michael Brandman Associates Molly Pearson— Santa Barbara County APCD (on conference call) Haseeb Qureshi—Urban Crossroads AQMD STAFF PRESENT (8) Elaine Chang—Deputy Executive Officer Steve Smith—Program Supervisor Daniel Garcia—Air Quality Specialist Jeff Inabinet—Air Quality Specialist James Koizumi—Air Quality Specialist Mike Krause—Program Supervisor Gordon Mize—Air Quality Specialist Barbara Radlein—Air Quality Specialist 5 Page 1572 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 FOR A SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF 259 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 2 COMMERCIAL UNITS TOTALING 2,253 SQUARE-FEET, AND 1 LIVE/WORK UNIT WITH 816 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE WITHIN THE MIXED-USE URBAN CORRIDOR (MU-UCR) DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APNS: 0229-311-14 AND -15 A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Wood Partners, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2020-00440 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2. On April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22-09 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision. 3. On April 20, 2022, Lozeau Drury, LLP ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving the application. 4. On July 20, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the application and making findings in support thereof. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0 - Page 1 of 5 Attachment 5 Page 1573 2. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July 20, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to an approximately 5.2-acre site within the Corridor 2 (CO2) designation, located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue; and c. The land use, General Plan land use designation, and Zoning classification for the subject property are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2) North Vacant City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2) South Single-Family Low Residential Low Residential — Etiwanda Residences Specific Plan (L-ESP) East Single-Family Low Residential Low Residential — Etiwanda Residences Specific Plan (L-ESP) West Shopping Center General Corridor 2 (CO2) Commercial d. The proposed project consists of a site plan and architectural review of a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non-residential space; an e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks, parking at the time the application was deemed complete; and f. The project complies with the landscaping requirements as prescribed in the Development Code at the time the application was deemed complete. 3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Corridor High, which envisions high development RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0 - Page 2 of 5 Page 1574 intensities along Foothill Boulevard, particularly adjacent to city centers. The project proposes a total of 259 apartment units, 1 live-work unit, and 2,253 square feet of commercial space, which is consistent with the General Plan's vision; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Corridor 2 (CO2) zone, which is an area for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity, and where a vibrant pedestrian environment and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods are achieved. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard while transitioning building scale appropriately to the surrounding area; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deemed complete, and the design/development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan's vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The City Council has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0 - Page 3 of 5 Page 1575 there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. c. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The City Council therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which City Council's decision is based is the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the City Clerk's Office of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2700. 5. Based upon the findings, evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's decision to approve Design Review DRC2020-00440 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-09. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20 day of July, 2022. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0 - Page 4 of 5 Page 1576 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 20th day of July, 2022. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: Executed this 20th day of July, 2022, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney Richards, Watson & Gershon RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0 - Page 5 of 5 Page 1577 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: ITEM G1 - 7/20/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING LOZEAU DRU RY. P T 510.935.4200 1939 Harrison Street,Ste.150 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.936.4205 Oakland,CA 94612 victona@lozeaudrury.com _......441 Via E-mail and US Mail October 1, 2021 Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 vincent.acuna@cityofrc.us Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-00440) Dear Mr. Acuna and Planning Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-0440), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction, use, and maintenance of a 260-unit apartment community, located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("Project"). After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude the IS/MND fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City") prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code ("PRC") section 21000, et seq. This comment has been prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE"). Mr. Offerman's comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Mr. Smallwood's comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. SWAPE's comment and the consultants' curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 2 of 31 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project would involve the construction of a 260-unit apartment complex on 5.2 acres. Applicant is requesting to construct a mixed-use development comprising 259 residential units, 2 commercial units, and 1 live-work unit, and a Minor Exception to reduce the number of required parking stalls by 12% within the Community Commercial (CC) District. More specifically, the proposed Project would include the following elements: • Two four-story buildings, with a maximum height of 60 feet; • 259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet; • 1 live-work unit, consisting of two stories and 1,570 square feet; • 3,339 square feet of commercial space (816 square feet in 1 live-work unit and 2,523 square feet of stand-alone commercial space); • 465 parking spaces, with 265 parking spaces located in a below-grade parking garage and the remaining 200 parking spaces located on a surface parking lot on the southern and eastern portions of the Project site; • Approximately 26 bicycle parking spaces; • Approximately 5,500 square feet of indoor amenity space, which includes a 1,600 square-foot lobby/leasing office, a 1,400 square-foot fitness center, and a 1,400 square-foot Club Room in the west building, and a 1,500 square-foot Business Center in the east building; • Two courtyards and a paseo, offering a pool and additional outdoor amenities; • Landscaping surrounding both buildings; • Sidewalks along Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; • Intersection improvements at Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard including lane modifications and restriping; • Creation of a bus stop in front of the Project on Foothill Boulevard; and • Undergrounding of existing Southern California Edison (SCE) overhead 12 kilovolt (kV) power lines along Etiwanda Avenue. IS/MND, p. 1-13. The Project site is located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is bound by Foothill Boulevard, a vacant lot, and condominiums to the north; Etiwanda Avenue and a shopping center to the west; and residential single-family homes to the south and east. The 5.56-acre site comprises two parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 0229-311-14 and 0229-311-15), which are currently vacant and undeveloped. II. LEGAL STANDARD As the California Supreme Court has held, "[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 3 of 31 nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR." Communities for a Better Env't v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504-505). "Significant environmental effect" is defined very broadly as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." Pub. Res. Code ("PRC") § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial."No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83. "The `foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Communities for a Better Env't v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA). The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an "environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. An EIR is required if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a "fair argument" that the project will have a significant environmental effect. PRC, §§ 21100, 21064. Since "[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process," by allowing the agency "to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR]," negative declarations are allowed only in cases where "the proposed project will not affect the environment at all." Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440. However, mitigation measures may not be construed as project design elements or features in an environmental document under CEQA if such a mischaracterization is significant. See Lotus vs. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645. A "mitigation measure" is a measure designed to minimize a project's significant environmental impacts, PRC § 21002.1(a), while a "project" is defined as including "the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 4 of 31 whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). Unlike mitigation measures, project elements are considered prior to making a significance determination. Measures are not technically "mitigation" under CEQA unless they are incorporated to avoid or minimize "significant" impacts. PRC § 21100(b)(3). To ensure that the project's potential environmental impacts are fully analyzed and disclosed, and that the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is considered in depth, mitigation measures that are not included in the project's design should not be treated as part of the project description. Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 654-55, 656 fn.8. Mischaracterization of a mitigation measure as a project design element or feature is "significant," and therefore amounts to a material error, "when it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project's environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures." Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185. Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study "to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and...there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, "may" means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05. Under the "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: This 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 5 of 31 Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument. Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that "it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original). CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project's environmental setting or "baseline." CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2). The CEQA "baseline" is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project's anticipated impacts. CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency's environmental review under CEQA: ...must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25 ("Save Our Peninsula"). As the court of appeal has explained, "the impacts of the project must be measured against the 'real conditions on the ground,- and not against hypothetical permitted levels. Id. at 121-23. III. DISCUSSION A. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project's indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (September 24, 2021) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 6 of 31 residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A. Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, "The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims." Ex. A, pp. 2-3. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that future residents and employees of the commercial spaces will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id., pp. 4-5. This exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id., p. 4. Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project's indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project's location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, Interstate 15 freeway, Auto Club Speedway, etc.) and the high levels of PM 2.5 already present in the ambient air. Id., pp. 10-12. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future employees of the Project. Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id., p. 5. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings' interiors. Ex. A, pp. 12-13. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert's comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597-98 ("under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts"). In addition to assessing the Project's potential health impacts to residents Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 7 of 31 and employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects' future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the BAAQMD level. Ex. A, pp. 6-10. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review. The failure to address the Project's formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 ("CBIA"). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment's effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Ca1.4th at 800-801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 ("CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present"). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA's statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze "impacts on a project's users or residents that arise from the project's effects on the environment." Id. at 800 (emphasis added). The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents and commercial/industrial employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a "project's users and residents" must be addressed in the CEQA process. The Supreme Court's reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA's statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project's effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. "Section 21083(b)(3)'s express language, for example, requires a finding of a `significant effect on the environment' (§ 21083(b)) whenever the `environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, "the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA's enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme." Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the future residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA's safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 8 of 31 Because Mr. Offermann's expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts. B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife. Wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have significant impacts on several special status species. An EIR is required to mitigate these impacts. Dr. Smallwood's conclusions were informed by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood's site visit in September 2021. Ms. Smallwood visited the site of the proposed Project on Dr. Smallwood's behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on September 4, 2021. Dr. Smallwood's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B. The wildlife baseline relied upon by the IS/MND is woefully inadequate. Wildlife biologist Dr. Smallwood's review of the impacts to wildlife from the Project concluded that the Project may have significant impacts on several special- status species. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts. According to the IS/MND and Biological Resources Assessment ("BRA"), at least 49 special-status plant species and 52 special-status wildlife species have been documented within the Guasti and surrounding eight quadrangles. IS/MND, p. 4-14. A California Natural Diversity Database ("CNDDB") search also yielded four special-status species with occurrences that overlapped with the biological survey area ("BSA") used for the Project, which includes the entire Project site plus a surrounding 500-foot buffer. These special status species included the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi). Id. While no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the reconnaissance field survey for the Project site, "marginal habitat" for two special-status wildlife species, the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), were identified during the database review is present in the biological survey area. Id. However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, the IS/MND fails to adequately address and mitigate Project impacts to special-status species. The IS/MND's baseline for biological impacts is inadequate, incomplete, and understates the biological values at the Project site for several reasons. See Ex. B, pp. 6-7. First, the IS/MND improperly relies on a single reconnaissance field survey that was insufficient and conducted using minimal effort at the most inappropriate time of the day. According to the IS/MND and BRA, a reconnaissance field survey was conducted by AECOM (2021) on September 24, 2020. See IS/MND, App. B, pp. 5-6. A botanist Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 9 of 31 visited the site for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon (14:00 to 15:30 hours), at a time when, as Dr. Smallwood points out, wildlife was least likely to be detected. Ex. B, p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). In fact, temperatures were reportedly 96° to 99° F, which Dr. Smallwood explains is "too hot for a wildlife survey." Id., p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). The IS/MND reports that "no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey." IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, Dr. Smallwood notes that "this report follows from a survey of insufficient effort at the most inappropriate time of day," and as a result, "there should be no surprise that special-status species were undetected." Ex. B, p. 5. Because the IS/MND fails to report which, if any, species of wildlife were detected by the botanist, Dr. Smallwood finds this lack of reporting suggests that "the botanist likely saw no wildlife in the heat of the middle of the afternoon." Id. Consequently, whether the BRA is substantial evidence is not apparent from the face of the document or the IS/MND. Second, the IS/MND misuses the CNDDB. Ex. B, p. 6. When discussing that the CNDDB search yielded four special-status species—i.e. coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry's spineflower—with occurrences that overlapped the BSA, the IS/MND states that "the CNDDB records of these four species had non-specific locations which were not mapped precisely to the locations where the species were observed and each individual observation is a square mile or greater in size; so it is not known whether the observation was actually made precisely within the biological survey area." IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, this statement is flawed. As Dr. Smallwood explains, "CNDDB records are mapped accurately, but exact locations are often not shared publicly as a means to protect the species." Ex. B, p. 6. According to Dr. Smallwood: CNDDB records are intended to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of a special-status species in the project area, but not the species' exact locations. Nor is CNDDB intended to support determinations of species' absence, as the IS/MND implies. CNDDB is intended to flag the occurrences of species in the area, not to provide an exact accounting of where the species is located at the moment. Id. Additionally, the IS/MND further misrepresents CNDDB by implying that the older records are dismissible. See id. The IS/MND states that "...CNDDB records that overlap with the biological survey area are 19 years old or more and since that time, the area has been developed substantially. As a result, it is possible many locations no longer exist. Current site conditions do not provide suitable habitat for these species and none are known to occur or expected to occur within the Project site or vicinity." IS/MND, p. 4- 14. Dr. Smallwood explains that this statement is a misrepresentation of CNDDB because: CNDDB does not imply that species are static, or that locations where they were mapped previously are the only locations where the species would be found later. Wildlife populations are spatially dynamic, shifting Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 10 of 31 centers of activity every generation or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979), so it would be inappropriate of CNDDB to assert that locations of past occupancy should still be locations of current occupancy. For this reason, users of CNDDB typically determine whether CNDDB records exist within a 5-mile radius of a proposed project. Occurrences within 5 miles serve as indicators that the species could also occur at the project site, and if so, then protocol-level detection surveys should be performed. Ex. B, p. 6. Given the paucity of the coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry's spineflower in San Bernardino County, the Project's baseline should be informed by protocol level surveys that can determine the presence or absence of these species at the Project site. Third, the surveys conducted for the Project do not provide substantial evidence of the presence or absence of special-status species that are known in the vicinity. The IS/MND asserts that "the BSA generally does not provide suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species." IS/MND, p. 4-14. Dr. Smallwood states that "[t]his assertion, however, lacks evidence in the form of detection survey results." Ex. B, p. 6. According to Dr. Smallwood, detection surveys are designed by species' experts to provide "the best chance for detecting the targeted species by applying the methods and survey effort most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present." Id. Here, the botanist that was charged with surveying the Project site for 90 minutes in the middle of the hot afternoon failed "to come anywhere close to having performed a detection survey for any species of wildlife." Id. As a result, neither the IS/MND nor the BRA was justified in asserting that the Project site lacks special-status species of wildlife. Hence, Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys should be performed, and subsequently assessed and reported in an EIR. Id., p. 22. Furthermore, due to the absence of detection surveys, the IS/MND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. Ex. B, pp. 6-7. Dr. Smallwood states that the "IS/MND repeatedly speculates that for this or that species, anthropogenic disturbances prevent their occurrences," such as the IS/MND exemplifying one such disturbance as routine mowing of the site. Ex. B, p. 6 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-14-4-15). However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, "[t]he IS/MND offers no evidence in defense of its premise that routine mowing precludes special-status species of wildlife." Id., pp. 6-7. As evidence, Dr. Smallwood calls attention to the IS/MND's failure "to identify the Crotch bumble bee host plants that allegedly occur in low density," as well as "make the case that the host plants in question are the only plants useable by Crotch bumble bee." Id., p. 7 (citing IS/MND, p. 4-14). Such failures indicate that the IS/MND "relies on generalities rather than specifics, and on speculation rather than evidence." Id. Additionally, the IS/MND suggests that special-status species, such as the western yellow bat, were killed off by house cats, driven away by traffic noise, and inhibited by the low supply of insect prey. IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, p. 7. But as Dr. Smallwood notes, "[n]one of these suggestions are backed by evidence, and no effort has been made to actually look for special-status species on the site." Ex. B, p. 7. Dr. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 11 of 31 Smallwood refers to the IS/MND's discussion of the Crotch bumble bee as a prime example: In the case of the Crotch bumble bee, the IS/MND reports, "No bumble bee species were observed during the field survey." (There is only one species of Crotch bumble bee.) This reporting ignores the fact that Crotch bumble bees are unlikely to be out and about in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures range 96° to 99° F, as was reportedly the conditions during the one survey performed — a survey performed not by a wildlife ecologist or an entomologist, but by a botanist. The report of having not detected Crotch bumble bee was a meaningless report, and serves only to misrepresent how wildlife ecologists determine whether a species is present or likely absent from a site. Id., p. 7. As a result, the conclusion that the Project will not significantly impact the Crutch bumble bee and western yellow bat is not supported by substantial evidence and a fair argument exists that the Project may have significant impacts on the special- status species. Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys for multiple special- status species of wildlife be implemented to inform an EIR. Id., pp. 6, 22. Only with an accurate baseline could the IS/MND purport to assess the impacts on these special- status species. Fourth, in addition to these inadequate survey methods and unidentified baselines, the IS/MND and its BRA understate the range of animal species that are likely present on the Project site. While the IS/MND's BRA determines occurrence likelihood to be low for the western yellow bat and Crotch bumble bee, its determinations for all other species is unreported. IS/MND, App. B, pp. 8-9. The BRA refers the reader to Appendix D for determination of all species to be considered, but Appendix D is empty on the copy of the BRA report downloaded from City of Rancho Cucamonga's website. See id., p. 8 & Appendix D. Contrary to the IS/MND and BRA reports, Dr. Smallwood's review of eBird and iNaturalist identified no less than 60 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife and the Crotch bumble bee as having been seen very close to the project site, seen nearby, seen within the region, or whose geographic range overlaps the project site. Ex. B, pp. 7, 8-10 (Table 2) (listing species that Dr. Smallwood considers potentially occurring on the project site at one time or another or periodically). Ms. Smallwood also detected 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during her 108- minute site visit on September 4, 2021 . See Ex. B, p. 3 (Table 1) (listing species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site). She saw Cooper's hawk and American kestrel (Photos 2 and 3, p. 3), California scrub-jays and American crows (Photos 4 and 5, p. 4), Say's phoebe and a great blue heron (Photos 6 and 7, p. 4), and side-blotched lizard and California ground squirrel (Photos 8 and 9, p. 5), among other species. Id., pp. 2-5. Based on Ms. Smallwood's observations, Dr. Smallwood writes: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 12 of 31 [Ms. Smallwood's] survey outcome indicates that the site of the proposed project continues to serve as valuable habitat to at least 24 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it likely serves as habitat to many more species. It also holds the potential to produce many new birds, mammals and reptiles for years to come. A fair argument can be made for the need to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife, and for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife Id., p. 2. Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood points out the significance of Ms. Smallwood's observance of California ground squirrels on the adjacent property across the street from the Project site. Dr. Smallwood states: Ms. Smallwood's detection of California ground squirrels on the open field across the street indicates that ground squirrels likely also occur on the project site. The occurrence of ground squirrels in the project area is significant because many special-status species are found in association with ground squirrels and their burrow complexes. Ground squirrels are prey of large raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk and Swainson's hawk. Ground squirrels are also prey of terrestrial carnivores such as American badger, which specialize on ground squirrels. Ground squirrels also construct subterranean habitat used by many species such as burrowing owl. The occurrence of ground squirrel warrants detection surveys for multiple special-status species that associate with this species. Id., p. 5. Moreover, "[b]ecause ground squirrels occur in the project area," Dr. Smallwood also recommends that "breeding-season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented (CDFW 2012)," but only "implemented prior to the circulation of an EIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts." Id. p. 22. Thus, given the close proximity of these special-status species, the IS/MND fails as a matter of law to analyze the impacts to these species and their habitat. In conclusion, the IS/MND's failure to adequately evaluate the significance of the impacts to special-status species of wildlife violates CEQA. Thus, the Project requires an EIR to properly mitigate wildlife impacts of the Project. ii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity. Neither the IS/MND nor the BRA assess the lost breeding capacity of birds that would result from the Project. See Ex. B, pp. 7, 11. In so doing, the IS/MND fails to analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity on bird species likely to nest on the ground and in trees within the BSA. Id., p. 7. While habitat loss Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 13 of 31 results in the immediate numerical decline of birds and other animals, it also results in a permanent loss of productive capacity. Id. Dr. Smallwood cites a recent study that documented a "29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years," a decline which he says was "driven by multiple factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation." Id. (citing Rosenberg et al. 2019). Here, the IS/MND and BRA identify only mourning dove as a bird species likely to nest on the ground, and only house finch, northern mockingbird, and California scrub- jay as species likely to nest in trees in the area. IS/MND, p. 4-15; IS/MND, App. B, p. 9. In reality, however, Dr. Smallwood reports that "many more species of birds are capable of nesting on and around the project site," especially since a lot of bird species are considered ground-nesters. Ex. B, p. 7. Dr. Smallwood cites two studies that show bird nesting densities that were between 32.8 and 35.8 bird nests per acre, for an average of 34.3 bird nests per acre. Id. (citing Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), respectively). Assuming nesting density at the Project site is a fifth of the 34.3 average reported, then 6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied by the Project's 5.2 acres of habit, Dr. Smallwood predicts that 35 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. Id., p. 11. Based on an average of 2.9 fledglings per nest, the Project would prevent the production of 102 new birds per year. Id. (citing Young (1948)). Based on Dr. Smallwood's calculations, "[a]fter 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 11,600 birds." Id. (emphasis added). The potential loss of 11,600 birds in California over the first century following construction of this Project easily qualifies as a significant and substantial impact that has not been analyzed. An EIR is required to fully analyze the Project's impact on lost breeding capacity, and to mitigate that impact. Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project's impacts from habitat loss, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22. iii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential cumulative impacts on habitat fragmentation. The IS/MND does not assess the likelihood of cumulative impacts on wildlife, especially from habitat fragmentation in the vicinity. Ex. B, p. 11. In addition to habit loss, habitat fragmentation, known as the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can also further diminish the productive capacity of the Project site. Id. (citing Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the Project site, which has led to a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area. Id. As a result, each of these patches of open space, including the Project's 5.2 acres, "is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species." Id. Because a fair argument exists that developing a currently undeveloped site that is likely suitable habitat for many species of wildlife will further fragment wildlife habitat in this area, there is a fair argument that the Project may contribute to habitat Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 14 of 31 fragmentation. Thus, habitat fragmentation is a cumulative effect of this Project that should be analyzed in an EIR, and mitigated accordingly. See Ex. B, p. 22. iv. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife movement. The IS/MND fails to address impacts to wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor. See IS/MND, pp. 4-16-4-17; Ex. B, p. 11. In doing so, the IS/MND improperly dismisses the Project's potential to significantly impact wildlife movement reasoning that the BSA "occurs within an industrial center of the Los Angeles Basin and does not occur within a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site," and "as a result, direct impacts to a regional wildlife movement corridor would not occur." IS/MND, App. B, pp. 10-11; Ex. B, p. 11. These conclusions rely on a false CEQA standard. Ex. B, p. 11. As Dr. Smallwood states, "[t]he primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor." Id.; see also CEQA Guidelines, App. G, pp. 333-34 (stating that the CEQA significance threshold is whether, among other things, a project will "[i]nterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species...."). Impacts to wildlife movement may occur with or without the presence of a wildlife corridor. Ex. B, p. 11. Dr. Smallwood writes: A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes one of the last of a diminishing suite of open space patches within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). Id., p. 11. Hence, the Project "would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging opportunities, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes." Id. Because the Project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region, Dr. Smallwood agrees that an EIR needs to be prepared to address the Project's impacts on wildlife movement in the region. Moreover, the Project site is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is one of four major North American migration routes for birds. While migratory birds travel the flyway on their annual north-south migration, they stopover at areas with suitable habitat and food supplies. As the IS/MND's BRA notes, many birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA") and California Fish and Game Code ("CFGC") §§ 3503-3503.5 "are likely to use the BSA for breeding, migratory stopovers, and local dispersal." IS/MND, App. B, p. 9 (emphasis added). However, no analysis of any direct impacts to wildlife movement, including birds' stop-over habitat, is included in the IS/MND and its appendix. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 15 of 31 Lastly, the IS/MND and BRA acknowledge that construction from the Project would have indirect impacts on wildlife movement, stating that the Project's "construction activities (i.e., increased noise, human presence, vibration) would likely result in wildlife avoidance of the area during the construction time frame." Id. at 11-12 (emphasis added). Such indirect and direct impacts could significantly affect wildlife movement, and should be addressed in an EIR and mitigated accordingly. Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project's impacts from interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22. v. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife by window collisions. Dr. Smallwood's report concludes that the Project will have significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. See Ex. B, pp. 12-18. But neither the IS/MND nor the BRA express any concern about bird-window collision impacts, nor do they propose any mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for such impacts to special- status species of bird. Id., p. 12. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to window collisions is especially important because "[w]indow collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality." Id. According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project's buildings, at 60 feet tall, would extend into much of the bird traffic observed by Ms. Smallwood at the Project site on September 4, 2021. Id. The IS/MND's rendering of the project shows facades composed of extensive structural glass, which Dr. Smallwood notes, "would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds." Id. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyaway, and Ms. Smallwood's observations at the time of her site visit further confirmed that birds fly through the Project's airspace, even during the nonmigratory season. Id. Based on Dr. Smallwood's review, at least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the Project area, see id. pp. 8-10 (Table 2), most of which "have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations." Id., p. 12 (citing Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Dr. Smallwood reviewed a number of studies in order to calculate the number of bird collisions that would occur annually as a result of the Project. Ex. B, p. 13. According to his calculations, each m2 of glass would result in an average of 0.073 bird deaths per year. Id. Dr. Smallwood then looked at the building design for the Project and estimated the Project would include at least 3,196 m2 of glass on its facades. Based on the estimated 3,196 m2 of glass on its façades and the 0.073 bird deaths per year, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project would result in at least 234 bird deaths Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 16 of 31 per year. Id. Even more significant is the 100-year toll from this average annual fatality rate, which would be at least 23,363 bird deaths. Id. As Dr. Smallwood correctly points out, "[i]f the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 234 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts." Id. Considering the list of bird-window collision factors that Dr. Smallwood stressed should be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed Project, Ex. B, pp. 13-17, 22-23, he has suggested a number of mitigation measures. Id., pp. 17-18. As a starting point, before construction, [a]ny new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity." Id., p. 17. Dr. Smallwood explains: [Preconstruction] surveys can reveal the one or more facades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post- construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective. Id., p. 17. However, with regard to most of the known or suspected collision risk factors that Dr. Smallwood lists, he warns that "the proposed project's design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk." Id. Therefore, Dr. Smallwood suggests the following: Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight. Id. Dr. Smallwood also notes the importance of post-construction fatality monitoring, which he says "should be an essential feature of any new building project." Id. In addition, for mitigation measures involving the siting and design of the Project, Dr. Smallwood suggests: (1) retrofitting to reduce impacts by marking windows, managing outdoor landscape vegetation, managing indoor landscape vegetation, and managing nocturnal lighting; (2) siting and designing to minimize impacts by deciding on location of structure, deciding on facade and orientation, selecting type and sizes of windows, designing to minimize transparency through two parallel façades, designing to minimize views of interior plants, and landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs; and (3) monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts by systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns, and adjusting light management, window marking, and other measures as needed. Ex. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 17 of 31 B, pp. 17-18. Dr. Smallwood also recommends that the use of compensatory mitigation be incorporated at any new building project. Id., p. 23. Thus, because many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the Proposed project, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address and mitigate this potential impact. vi. The IS/MND fails to address the Project's potential significant impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project. Dr. Smallwood identifies the serious impacts that increased traffic has on wildlife. Ex. B, pp. 18-20. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to vehicle collisions is especially important because "traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife," across North America. Id., p. 18 (citing Forman et al. 2003). In the United States alone, estimates for "avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year." Id. (citing Loss et al. 2014). As Dr. Smallwood explains: Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Increased use of existing roads will increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts will far exceed the impacts of land conversion to residential use for a warehouse. Id., pp. 18-19. Furthermore, a recent study conducted on traffic-caused wildlife mortality found "1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California." Id., p. 18 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Hence, as Dr. Smallwood points out, an analysis is needed to determine whether increased traffic generated by the Project would result in impacts to local wildlife. Id., p. 19. The IS/MND anticipates that the proposed Project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled, which translates to 5,979,430 annual vehicle miles traveled. IS/MND, pp. 4-9, 4-23; Ex. B, p. 18. The additional 16,382 daily miles traveled that is expected from the Project will undoubtedly result in collisions with wildlife. Ex. B, p. 19. As Dr. Smallwood explains, this additional 16,382 daily miles driven as a result of the Project is "a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating." Id. (citing Photos 10 and 11, Ex. B, pp. 19-20). However, "[d]espite the obvious risk to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the IS/MND does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the Project site." Ex. B, p. 19. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 18 of 31 To predict the road mortality of wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, Dr. Smallwood analyzed the data from the study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality in Contra Costa County. Id., p. 20 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). By inputting estimates of vehicle miles per wildlife fatalities calculated using the Contra Costa County study, i.e. 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality, Dr. Smallwood predicts: Based on the daily VMT predicted by the IS/MND, the project would generate 5,979,430 vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality, would predict 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 163,820 wildlife fatalities. Ex. B, p. 20. Based on Dr. Smallwood's assumptions and calculations, the traffic generated by the Project would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. Id. Dr. Smallwood also notes that "mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible," and therefore, "need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project." Id. Specifically, Dr. Smallwood suggests compensatory mitigation in the form of "funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures," and "donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities." Id., p. 23. Moreover, wildlife that will be run over by the Project's additional traffic may include special-status species of wildlife such as the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus). Although these two special-status species were not observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance field survey or Ms. Smallwood's site visit, the CNDDB search yielded occurrences for both the coast horned lizard and Los Angeles pocket mouse that overlapped with the Project's biological survey area. IS/MND, p. 4-14. Regardless of whether these special-status species appear on the Project site, they do cross roads over which traffic from the Project will travel. The IS/MND fails to recognize at all this potential significant impact of the Project. Because a fair argument exists that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife in the vicinity, an EIR must be prepared to assess this impact and identify appropriate mitigation. vii. The IS/MND fails to adequately address the Project's potential cumulative impacts on wildlife. The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts to wildlife from the Project by improperly implying that cumulative impacts are in reality only residual impacts as a result of incomplete mitigation from project-level impacts. Ex. B, p. 21. For example, the IS/MND states: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 19 of 31 As previously discussed, impacts related to the proposed Project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed Project's contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. IS/MND, p. 4-78. However, the IS/MND's implied standard is not the standard of cumulative effects required under CEQA. Ex. B, p. 21. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the required cumulative analysis. See 14 CCR § 15130; PRC § 21083(b)(2). According to Dr. Smallwood, cumulative effects for wildlife "can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity (Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale." Ex. B, p. 21 . Here, the IS/MND's cumulative "analysis" is based on flawed logic. The conclusion that the Project will have no cumulative impact because each individual impact has been reduced to a less-than-significant level relies on the exact argument CEQA's cumulative impact analysis is meant to protect against. The entire purpose of the cumulative impact analysis is to prevent the situation where mitigation occurs to address project-specific impacts, without looking at the bigger picture. This argument, applied over and over again, has resulted in major environmental damage, and is a major reason why CEQA was enacted. As the Court stated in CBE v. CRA: Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at 114 (citations omitted). Even if the IS/MND was applying the accurate CEQA standard, which would mean that the cumulative effects analysis would be nothing more than an analysis of mitigation efficiency, Dr. Smallwood points out "that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds." Ex. B, p. 21. Notwithstanding, the IS/MND misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR must be prepared to include an adequate, serious analysis of the Project's cumulative impacts on wildlife. viii. The pre-construction surveys identified in the IS/MND are not sufficient to address potential impacts to birds and bats that may be present at the site. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 20 of 31 Dr. Smallwood has reviewed the proposed wildlife impact mitigation identified in the IS/MND related to pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats (i.e. Mitigation Measure BIO-1). See IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, pp. 21-22. Although Dr. Smallwood agrees with the need for pre-construction surveys for birds and bats at the Project site, he notes that pre-construction surveys will come too late either to disclose the Project's anticipated impacts or to fully mitigate impacts to birds and bats. Ex. B, p. 21. As Dr. Smallwood explains: Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts, let alone to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; they are not even designed to assess impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys. Id., p. 21. By failing to determine the actual baseline of bird's and bat's reliance on the site for roosting, nesting, and foraging and instead waiting within seven days prior to the start of construction to determine what roosts, nests, birds, and bats may suffer impacts from the Project, the IS/MND fails to evaluate and mitigate the Project's potential significant impacts to nesting birds and bats. Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be implemented for the Project before pre-construction surveys are performed. Id., pp. 21-22. In addition to detection surveys and preconstruction surveys being performed, an EIR should be prepared detailing how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Id., p. 22. C. The IS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project's Air Quality Impacts. The IS/MND for the Project relies on emissions calculated from CalEEMod.2016.3.2. IS/MND, p. 4-8; Ex. C, pp. 1-2. This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a project's construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND, resulting in an underestimation of the Project's emissions. Ex. C, p. 2. Because the IS/MND uses incorrect estimates for emissions, its air quality analysis and GHG emissions analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project's emissions. The particular errors identified by SWAPE are discussed below. These errors should be Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 21 of31 corrected in a subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project. SWAPE's expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit C. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated reduction of land use size. Based on the IS/MND, the Project proposes to build "259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet." IS/MND, p. 1-13. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the correct number of residential units (i.e. 259 apartments), but the incorrect square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area (i.e. reduction of the default value of 259,000- to 228,000-SF). IS/MND, App. A, pp. 25, 29; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 23, 27; Ex. C, pp. 4-5. Further review of the model's output files indicates that the land use size was reduced from the CalEEMod default value without adequate explanation or justification. IS/MND, App. A, p. 29; IS/MND, App. F, p. 27; Ex. C, p. 5. The CalEEMod User's Guide requires that any changes to the default models be justified. Ex. C, p. 5 (citing CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, pp. 2, 9). According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "Site Plan; Project population." IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23. Given that the IS/MND states that the apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF, the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185- SF to 354,053-SF. Ex. C, p. 5. However, the IS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use, and therefore, the reduction to the default floor surface area is unsubstantiated. Id. This change also is not mentioned or justified in the IS/MND and associated appendices. SWAPE explains: This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model's calculations. The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts). Ex. C, p. 5 (citing CalEEMod User Guide, p. 28). By including an unsubstantiated reduction to the floor surface area of the Project's residential units, the model underestimates the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., p. 5. ii. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated reductions to architectural and area coating emission factors. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alt Cuvee Mixed- Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors. IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, pp. 5-6. The Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 22 of 31 nonresidential exterior and interior architectural area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default 100 g/L to 50 g/L. IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, pp. 5-6. The explanation provided in the file is: "SCAQMD Building Envelope 50 g/L." IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24; Ex. C, p. 6. But neither the IS/MND nor the associated appendices mention or justify these changes. According to SWAPE, these changes are unsupported for two reasons: First, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the building envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113, whatsoever. Second, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only building envelope coatings during Project construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate. Ex. C, p. 6. Such unsubstantiated reductions cause an issue because the model uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project's reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound ("ROG/VOC") emissions. Id. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model could underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions. Id. Thus, the IS/MND's emissions for architectural and area coating should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. iii. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated reduction to gas fireplace values. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model demonstrates a reduction to gas fireplaces values were manually altered to include no gas fireplaces. IS/MND, App. A, p. 28; IS/MND, App. F, p. 26; Ex. C, pp. 6-7. Neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values. Ex. C, p. 6. However, the IS/MND indicates that the east building would include a courtyard with an outdoor fireplace, meaning that at least one fireplace would be installed on the Project site. IS/MND, p. 1-13; Ex. C, p. 7. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the number of gas fireplaces, the model could underestimate the Project's area-source operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Ex. C, p. 7. iv. The IS/MND relies on incorrect CO2 intensity factors. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the CO2 intensity factors for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" and "Alta Cuvee Bus Bay" were officially reduced from 702.44- to 531 .98- and 471.24-pounds per megawatt hour ("Ibs/MWhr"), respectively. IS/MND, App. A, pp. 30, 91; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 28, 87; Ex. C, p. 2. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 23 of 31 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justifications for these changes are: • Electricity supplied by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility, which is not available as input selection. SCE used as surrogate • SB 100 mandates 44% renewable by end of 2024. SCE CO2 factor assumes 40% renewables when operations begin. SCE 2019 power mix = 36% renewables IS/MND, App. A, pp. 26, 91; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 23, 86. These justifications are insufficient. Ex. C, p. 2. Based on SWAPE's review of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Content Label, the City's CO2 intensity factor is 630 lbs/MWhr, which means that the CO2 intensity factor is underestimated by approximately 98- and 159-lbs/MWhr, respectively. Id., pp. 2-3. Neither the IS/MND nor its associated appendices provide a citation or further justification for the updated carbon intensity factors. Such inconsistencies pose an issue because the model uses the CO2 intensity factor to calculate the Project's GHG emissions associated with electricity use. Id., p. 3. By including an underestimated carbon intensity factor, the models underestimate the Project's potential GHG emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id. v. The IS/MND fails to model all required parking. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates that the required parking is underestimated in the model. IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23; Ex. C, pp. 3-4. According to the IS/MND, the Project is pending approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the amount of required parking by 12%, from 526 to 465 spaces. IS/MND, p. 1-15, Table 1-2. However, this request is yet to be approved. Id., p. 1-15; Ex. C, p. 4. As SWAPE points out, "the model should have included the entire amount of required parking in order to conduct the most conservative analysis." Ex. C, p. 4. But review of the output files indicates that the Project's model only includes 465 parking spaces, rather than the 526 spaces required by the City. IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23; Ex. C, p. 4. Hence, the total amount of parking is underestimated by 61 spaces. Ex. C, p. 4. But this underestimation is incorrect since there is no way to verify whether the City will approve or deny the Project's requested parking exception. Id. As such, the potential underestimation affects CalEEMod calculations for the model's VOC emissions from architectural coatings and energy impacts. Id. By failing to include the entire amount of required parking spaces, the model underestimates the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 24 of 31 vi. The IS/MND relies on incorrect solid waste generation rates. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates that the solid waste generation rates for that of the proposed Project were reduced in the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project's emissions. IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 7-8. The total solid waste generation rate was cumulatively decreased by 23.71 tons per year. Ex. C, p. 7. According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "Remove duplicate waste generation." IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24. But the IS/MND estimates that the proposed Project's "operational activities would generate approximately 1 .6 tons per day of solid waste during Project operation." IS/MND, p. 4-73 & n.99. Based on the solid waste generation rate that the IS/MND uses, the Project's operational activities would generate approximately 584 tons per year of solid waste. Ex. C, p. 8. However, the model's output files indicate that its emissions estimates for the Project's total solid waste generation of 123.6 tons per year, which includes 119.6 tons per year for 259 mid-rise apartments, 0.46 tons per year of solid waste for 1 live-work unit (referred to as a condo/townhouse by the model), 0.03 tons per year of solid waste for outdoor amenity space (referred to as a city park), and 3.51 tons per year of solid waste for the commercial space (referred to as a strip mall). IS/MND, App. A, p. 85; IS/MND, App. F, p. 82; Ex. C, p. 8. As SWAPE points out, the model's solid waste is underestimated by 460.4 tons per year, and therefore, inconsistent with information included in the IS/MND. Ex. C, p. 8. Compared to the solid waste generation rate used by the IS/MND, the Project's model relies on solid waste generation rates that are grossly underestimated, and as a result, the model underestimates the Project's GHG emissions from operational activities. Id. Thus, the IS/MND's emissions for solid waste should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id. vii. The IS/MND relies on the use of underestimated operational vehicle fleet mix percentages. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates that the operational vehicle fleet mix percentages were underestimated within the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project's mobile-source operational emissions. IS/MND, App. A, pp. 28-29; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 26-27; Ex. C, pp. 9-10. According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justification for these changes is: "Residential Trips." IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, p. 9. However, neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values with substantial evidence. Ex. C, pp. 9-10. By including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, the model could underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., p. 10. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 25 of 31 viii. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated reductions to off-road equipment horsepower values. Review of the CalEEMod output files for the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" demonstrates several reductions to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values. IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 10-11. According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table, the justification for these changes is: "Project Inventory." IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24; Ex. C, p. 10. However, neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values with substantial evidence. Ex. C, p. 10. By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values, the model could underestimate the Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., pp. 10-11. ix. The IS/MND relies on the incorrect application of construction-related mitigation measures. Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model relies on an incorrect application of the construction mitigation measure of "Water Exposed Area." IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 11-12. No adequate justification is provided in the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table for the inclusion of this specific mitigation measure. Ex. C, p. 11. Instead, the file mentions "SCAQMD Rule 403" as a "Construction Off-Road Equipment Mitigation." IS/MND, App. A, p. 24; IS/MND, App. F, p. 22; Ex. C, p. 11. However, neither the IS/MND nor the appendices include these as formal mitigation measures, which means they are project design features making it impossible to guarantee whether the measures used in the model would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. See IS/MND, pp. 5-1-5-4; Ex. C, pp. 11-12. By the IS/MND using the construction-related mitigation measures in the model, it is artificially reducing its emissions measures. Ex. C, p. 12. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project's construction emissions and the mitigation cannot be relied upon. Id. Thus, the design features should be included as mitigation measures. Id., p. 25. x. The IS/MND relies on the incorrect application of operational mitigation measures. Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model also relies on an incorrect application of several operational mitigation measures related to energy (i.e. Exceed Title 24, Install High Efficiency Lighting, Install Energy Efficient Appliances), area (i.e. No Hearths Installed, Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies), and water (i.e. Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet, Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet, Use Water Efficient Irrigation System). IS/MND, App. A, pp. 72, 77, 79; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 70, 75, 77; Ex. C, pp. 12-14. The file provided no adequate justification for any of these operational mitigation measures used to reduce operational-related emissions as a result of the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 26 of 31 Project, but includes a justification in the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table for area-related operational mitigation measures, which is "SCAQMD Rule 1113." IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, p. 13. However, neither the IS/MND nor the appendices include these as formal mitigation measures, meaning they are considered project design features, which makes it impossible to guarantee whether the measures used in the model would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. See IS/MND, pp. 5-1-5-4; Ex. C, pp. 13-14. By the IS/MND using the operational-related mitigation measures in the model, it is artificially reducing its emissions measures. Ex. C, pp. 13-14. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and the mitigation cannot be relied upon. Id., p. 14. Thus, the design features should be included as mitigation measures. Id., p. 25. In conclusion, as a result of these errors in the IS/MND, the Project's construction-related and operational emissions were underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project's air quality impacts. D. An Updated Air Model Analysis Is Needed to Determine Whether the Project Will Have a Significant Air Quality Impact. Review of the IS/MND's air model analysis demonstrates that the IS/MND fails to provide summer and winter CalEEMod output files. Ex. C, pp. 14-15. To calculate the Project's air quality analysis, the IS/MND uses the CalEEMod.2016.3.2 to calculate construction-related and operational emissions. IS/MND, p. 4-8. According to SWAPE, the CalEEMod is required to provide three types of output files: annual, summer, and winter. Ex. C, p. 14 (citing CalEEMod User's Guide, p. 61). SWAPE further explains: As demonstrated above, the CalEEMod summer and winter output files provide peak daily emissions estimates in pounds per day ("lbs/day"). Furthermore, the IS/MND quantifies the Project's construction-related and operational maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions and compares them to the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Id., pp. 14-15 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-8, Table 4.3-1; 4-9, Table 4.3-2). However, SWAPE's review of the IS/MND's air quality assessment and GHG assessment demonstrates that the IS/MND failed to disclose the summer and winter CalEEMod output files. Ex. C, p. 15. Because the IS/MND fails to provide the summer and winter output files, the IS/MND's air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment, and properly disclose all CalEEMod output files. E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 27 of 31 One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter ("DPM"), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease. The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than- significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis ("HRA"). Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND justifies its "less-than-significant" health risk impact conclusion by stating that "low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment combined with the brevity of the construction period and local meteorological characteristics indicate that the proposed Project would not generate substantial emissions over an extended period of time that could cause a health risk to adjacent land uses." IS/MND, p. 4-11. Additionally, the IS/MND claims that "the size of the Project site indicates that only during a limited portion of construction activities would heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment be operating within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, and all construction equipment would be maintained in accordance with the CARB Portable Engine Air Toxics Control Measure and the Off-Road Diesel Regulation to control emissions to the maximum extent feasible." Id. In addition, with regard to potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the IS/MND's justification is that "[o]peration of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area," because the Project "would be consistent with existing surrounding land use developments," and "does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations." Id., p. 4- 12. According to the IS/MND this means that operation of the Project "would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations." Id. However, SWAPE's review of the IS/MND and its evaluation of potential health risk impacts for the Project found that the IS/MND incorrectly concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact on nearby receptors, and completely failed to conduct a quantified construction or operational HRA. Ex. C, pp. 15- 17. SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health impacts, as well as the less-than-significant health impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. Id. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 28 of 31 First, the IS/ND fails to quantitatively evaluate construction-related and operational toxic air contaminants ("TACs"), or make a reasonable effort to connect emissions to health impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors. Ex. C, p. 16. SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. Id. In failing to connect TAC emissions to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Ex. C, p. 16. See Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510. Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Ex. C, pp. 16-17. The IS/MND's conclusion is also inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment's ("OEHHA") most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015. See "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. Ex. C, p. 17. The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. Id. Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. Id. An EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts. Id. Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, SWAPE found that the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD's specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. Ex. C, p. 17. Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted. F. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact. Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. Ex. C., pp. 17-21. SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 100 meters and Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 29 of 31 analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. Id. SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately 100 meters away over the course of Project construction are approximately 27.1 in one million for infants and 23.7 in one million for children. Id., p. 20. Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of a Project operation of 30 years is approximately 60 in one million. Id. The risks to infants, children, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in one million. SWAPE's analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. A health risk assessment must be prepared disclosing the health risk impacts from toxic air contaminants. G. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions of 2,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year ("MT CO2E/year"), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. IS/MND, p. 4-31, Table 4.8-1. Furthermore, the IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan ("CAP") in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact. IS/MND, pp. 4-31-4-32. However, SWAPE concludes that the IS/MND's GHG analysis, as well as its subsequent less-than-significant conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. Ex. C, pp. 21-25. First, as SWAPE points out, the IS/MND's GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model, as discussed above. Id., pp. 21-22. As a result, GHG emissions are underestimated and the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Second, the IS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. SWAPE notes that when compared to the correct quantitative threshold, the Project's GHG impacts are demonstrably significant. Id., p. 22. Third, SWAPE's updated analysis indicates a potential significant impact in GHG emissions. Id., pp. 22-23. As such, SWAPE recommends, "an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines." Id., p. 23. Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 30 of 31 Fourth, the IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying CARB's Scoping Plan. Ex. C, pp. 23-24. Based on SWAPE's quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards, SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND's GHG significance determination regarding the Project's consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Id., p. 24. Fifth, the IS/MND also fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying SCAG's RTP/SCS. Id., pp. 24-25. SWAPE's quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards concludes that the IS/MND's GHG significance determination concerning the Project's consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Id., p. 25. SWAPE's analysis demonstrated a potentially significant health risk impact from the project that necessitates mitigation, and it proposes that the project design features that are incorrectly applied as mitigation measures by the model be implemented formally as mitigation measures in order to adequately reduce construction and operational emissions. In addition to implementing these measures, an EIR should be included with updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analysis. H. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact. Review of the proposed Project and relevant appendices regarding the Project's noise impacts from construction activities provides substantial evidence that the IS/MND improperly analyzed construction noise levels and failed to adequately mitigate significant construction noise impacts. Based on the noise levels presented in the IS/MND, "the equipment is expected to generate noise levels ranging from approximately 70.3 dBA to 82.6 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet." IS/MND, p. 4-46— 4-47. The IS/MND notes that "construction noise levels would exceed the residential and commercial construction noise standards at the majority of nearby sensitive receptors," and as result, impacts related to on-site construction noise would be significant without mitigation. Id. at 4-47. Although the IS/MND concludes that mitigation measures included in the IS/MD will place noise impacts under significant thresholds, substantial evidence exists in the IS/MND and related appendix that demonstrates there still could be significant noise impacts despite the IS/MND's noise mitigation measures. As the court in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency stated, the application of an established regulatory standard cannot be applied in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect. Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114. The court in Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara also held that an EIR is required if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have significant unmitigated noise Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project October 1, 2021 Page 31 of31 impacts, even if other evidence shows that the project will not generate noise in excess of a noise ordinance. See Keep Out Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 732. Thus, an EIR to analyze potentially unmitigated noise impacts is required. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should be prepared, and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, f.Ge Victoria Ann Yundt LOZEAU DRURY LLP Exhibit A H E E INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING H E E 1448 Pine Street,Suite 103 San Francisco,California 94109 Telephone:(415)567-7700 E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com Date: September 24, 2021 To: Victoria A. Yundt Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4499) Pages: 19 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high- performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain Page 1610 and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a),No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015). Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 2 of 19 Page 1611 particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold(OEHHA, 2017a). With respect to the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces. 3 of 19 Page 1612 The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction. Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million). The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) 4 of 19 Page 1613 Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day. Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day. This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("EIR"), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's CEQA review 5 of 19 Page 1614 and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded. 1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, 6 of 19 Page 1615 adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea- formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard,particleboard). 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined 7 of 19 Page 1616 from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area- specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. Cin= EtotalQoa (Equation 1) where: Cin= indoor formaldehyde concentration(µg/m3) Etotai=total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. 8 of 19 Page 1617 Qoa=design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health"Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017). 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include: 1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone. NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as 9 of 19 Page 1618 mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. Further, we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre- Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. 10 of 19 Page 1619 The Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.), and thus the Project site is likely a sound impacted site. According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021) the existing ambient noise levels in Table 4.13-1, range from 52.5 to 70.8 dBA Ley. There were no modeled future noise levels in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021). An acoustic study of the existing and projected future noise levels needs to be conducted to understand the ambient noise levels, Lam,, and prepare the necessary project mitigation. We note that Project's close proximity to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., I-15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.) make this Project site a significantly sound impacted site. As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, (AECOM, 2021) the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 11 of 19 Page 1620 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder"speculate" on what and how 12 of 19 Page 1621 much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2_5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. 13 of 19 Page 1622 References AECOM. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. 14 of 19 Page 1623 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 — Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. Mcllvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf 15 of 19 Page 1624 Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX. Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air- quality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4 16 of 19 Page 1625 APPENDIX A INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS AND THE CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California". In other words,the CARB ATCM regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality", but rather "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products". Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality" when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure,which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 17 of 19 Page 1626 Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard(MDF)— 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board—30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or Hardwood Plywood—54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or Thin MDF—46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area). For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard(MDF)—3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board—7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood— 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF— 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms) Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, 18 of 19 Page 1627 could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction,then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF)resins. 19 of 19 Page 1628 Exhibit B Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Vincent Acuna, Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 1O500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91 26 September 2021 RE: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Dear Mr.Acuna, I write to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021), specifically on its analysis of potential impacts to biological resources. I understand the project would consist of a 26o-unit apartment community composed of two 6o-foot-tall buildings and 3,339 square feet of commercial floorspace on 5.2 acres at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard. The IS/MND is deficient in its characterization of the environmental setting and by not analyzing impacts to special-status species caused by habitat loss, interference with movement in the region,bird-window collisions, wildlife- automobile collisions, and it is deficient in its mitigation plan. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis,where I also worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I study wildlife mortality caused by wind turbines, electric distribution lines, agricultural practices, and road traffic. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society—Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation. I was a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology's premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-six years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached. SITE VISIT Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master's Degree from California State University Los Angeles,visited the site of the proposed project on my behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 (Photo 1). She walked the site's perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with the use of binoculars. The sky was clear with no wind, and temperatures ranged 64-72° F. 1 Page 1630 Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported. Noriko Smallwood s =_ Photos 1. Site of proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 4 September 2021. Ms. Smallwood detected 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during her 108 minutes at the site (Table 1). She saw Cooper's hawk and American kestrel (Photos 2 and 3), California scrub jays and American crows (Photos 4 and 5), Say's phoebe and a great blue heron (Photos 6 and 7), and side-blotched lizard and California ground squirrel (Photos 8 and 9), among other species. Noriko's detections of 24 species of vertebrate wildlife need to be interpreted within the context of her survey effort. No matter who performs the survey, the results of a single survey qualify as a thin empirical foundation for characterizing the environmental setting of any given site, including one proposed for a project. A single survey can serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site's wildlife community. Noriko had only <2 hours available to perform a visual scan survey on 4 September 2021, so there were only so many species she was likely to detect. Noriko could have detected many more species than she did had she also performed surveys at different times of day to detect diurnal, nocturnal and crepuscular species, or surveys in different seasons and years to detect migrants and species with multi-annual cycles of abundance, or surveys of different methods such as se of acoustic detectors or thermal-imaging for bats, owls, and nocturnally migratory birds, and live-trapping for small mammals. Noriko survey outcome indicates that the site of the proposed project continues to serve as valuable habitat to at least 24 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it likely serves as habitat to many more species. It also holds the potential to produce many new birds, mammals and reptiles for years to come. A fair argument can be made for the need to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife, and for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife. 2 Page 1631 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site. Species Scientific name Status Great blue heron Ardea herodius Gull Laridae Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis Say's phoebe Sayornis saya Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Common raven Corvus corax American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Bushtit Psaltiparus minimus _ House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana Photos 2 and 3. Cooper's hawk (left) and American kestrel(right) at the site of the proposed project, 4 September 2021. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 3 Page 1632 Photo 4 and 5. California scrub jay (left) and American crow (right) at the project site, 4 September 2021. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 6 and 7. Says phoebe (left) and great blue heron (right) at the project site. Photos by Noriko Smallwood, 4 September 2021. 4 Page 1633 i`i'_ w y+ . ` A . • � •fir . • � J. :y AP , 4 } i ' �.• Photos 8 and 9. Side-blotched T,, lizard at the project site and a = ---,.,. t. ground squirrel across the street, 4 . �:'• September 2021. Photos by Noriko -1a. -' Smallwood. , . - i' 1 I , Ms. Smallwood's detection of California ground squirrels on the open field across the street indicates that ground squirrels likely also occur on the project site. The occurrence of ground squirrels in the project area is significant because many special- status species are found in association with ground squirrels and their burrow complexes. Ground squirrels are prey of large raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk and Swainson's hawk. Ground squirrels are also prey of terrestrial carnivores such as American badger, which specialize on ground squirrels. Ground squirrels also construct subterranean habitat used by many species such as burrowing owl. The occurrence of ground squirrel warrants detection surveys for multiple special- status species that associate with this species. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT The IS/MND refers to a reconnaissance field survey Performed by AECOM (2021) on 24 September 2020. A botanist visited the site for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon (14:00 to 15:30 hours) when wildlife were least likely to be detected. In fact, temperatures were reportedly 96° to 99° F, which was just too hot for a wildlife survey. The IS/MND (page 4-14) reports, "no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey,"but this report follows from a survey of insufficient effort at the most inappropriate time of day. Given the minimal effort at the worst time of day, there should be no surprise that special-status species were undetected. I further note that nothing is reported of AECOM's (2021) wildlife survey; that is, the IS/MND fails to report which, if any, species of wildlife were detected by the botanist who was sent to do the job. This lack of reporting suggests to me that the botanist likely saw no wildlife in the heat of the middle of the afternoon. 5 Page 1634 The IS/MND misuses the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). According to the IS/MND, "the CNDDB records of these four species had non-specific locations which were not mapped precisely to the locations where the species were observed and each individual observation is a square mile or greater in size; so it is not known whether the observation was actually made precisely within the biological survey area." In fact, CNDDB records are mapped accurately,but exact locations are often not shared publicly as a means to protect the species. CNDDB records are intended to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of a special-status species in the project area,but not the species' exact locations. Nor is CNDDB intended to support determinations of species' absence, as the IS/MND implies. CNDDB is intended to flag the occurrences of species in the area, not to provide an exact accounting of where the species is located at the moment. The IS/MND further misrepresents CNDDB by implying that older records are dismissible. According to the IS/MND, "...CNDDB records that overlap with the biological survey area are 19 years old or more and since that time, the area has been developed substantially.As a result, it is possible many locations no longer exist. Current site conditions do not provide suitable habitat for these species and none are known to occur or expected to occur within the Project site or vicinity." CNDDB does not imply that species are static, or that locations where they were mapped previously are the only locations where the species would be found later. Wildlife populations are spatially dynamic, shifting centers of activity every generation or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979), so it would be inappropriate of CNDDB to assert that locations of past occupancy should still be locations of current occupancy. For this reason, users of CNDDB typically determine whether CNDDB records exist within a 5-mile radius of a proposed project. Occurrences within 5 miles serve as indicators that the species could also occur at the project site, and if so, then protocol-level detection surveys should be performed. The IS/MND asserts, "the BSA generally does not provide suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species."This assertion,however, lacks evidence in the form of detection survey results. Detection surveys are designed by species' experts to—at reasonable cost —provide the best chance for detecting the targeted species by applying the methods and survey effort most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present. The objectives of detection surveys are to (1) support negative findings of species when appropriate, (2) inform preconstruction surveys to improve their efficacy, (3) estimate project impacts, and(4) inform compensatory mitigation and other forms of mitigation. The botanist who surveyed the project site for 90 minutes in the middle of the hot afternoon did not come anywhere close to having performed a detection survey for any species of wildlife. Neither AECOM nor City of Rancho Cucamonga was justified by asserting that the site lacks special-status species of wildlife. Detection surveys for multiple special-status species of wildlife should be implemented to inform an EIR. Without such surveys, the IS/MND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. The IS/MND repeatedly speculates that for this or that species, anthropogenic disturbances prevent their occurrences. The IS/MND exemplifies one such disturbance as routine mowing of the site. The IS/MND 6 Page 1635 offers no evidence in defense of its premise that routine mowing precludes special- status species of wildlife. It fails to identify the Crotch bumble bee host plants that allegedly occur in low density, and it fails to make the case that the host plants in question are the only plants useable by Crotch bumble bee. The IS/MND relies on generalities rather than specifics, and on speculation rather than evidence. It suggests that house cats killed off the special-status species, and that traffic noise drove them away, and that insect prey are in low supply. None of these suggestions are backed by evidence, and no effort has been made to actually look for special-status species on the site. An example follows. In the case of the Crotch bumble bee,the IS/MND reports, "No bumble bee species were observed during the field survey." (There is only one species of Crotch bumble bee.) This reporting ignores the fact that Crotch bumble bees are unlikely to be out and about in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures range 96°to 99° F, as was reportedly the conditions during the one survey performed — a survey performed not by a wildlife ecologist or an entomologist,but by a botanist. The report of having not detected Crotch bumble bee was a meaningless report, and serves only to misrepresent how wildlife ecologists determine whether a species is present or likely absent from a site. My review of eBird and iNaturalist identified 6o special-status species of vertebrate wildlife and the Crotch's bumble bee as having been seen very close to the project site, seen nearby, seen within the region, or whose geographic range overlaps the project site (Table 2). I consider all of these species in Table 2 as potentially occurring on the project site at one time or another or periodically. AECOM (2o2i) determines occurrence likelihood to be low for western yellow bat and Crotch bumble bee,but its determinations for all other species is unreported. AECOM (2o2i) refers the reader to Appendix D for determinations of all species considered,but Appendix D is empty on the copy of AECOM's report I downloaded from City of Rancho Cucamonga's web site. Habitat Loss The IS/MND identifies only mourning dove as a bird species likely to nest on the ground. It lists only house finch, northern mockingbird and California scrub-jay as species likely to nest trees in the area. In reality, many more species of birds are capable of nesting on and around the project site. Many bird species are ground-nesters. The IS/MND does not analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity. A recent study documented a 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years — a decline driven by multiple factors,but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife,but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. For example, a grassland/wetland/woodland complex at one study site had a total bird nesting density of 32.8 nests per acre (Young 1948). In another study on a similar complex of vegetation cover,the average annual nest density was 35.8 nests per acre (Yahner 1982). These densities averaged 34.3 nests per acre, indicative of a very large productive capacity of North American birds,but also indicative of a very large source of lost capacity should habitat be taken for human uses. 7 Page 1636 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of vertebrate wildlife as determined by the IS/MND and by publicly available data bases such as eBird(https://eBird.org) and iNaturalist, where 'very close'indicates within a mile, `nearby'indicates within a few miles, and 'in region'indicates within to to 3o miles of the project site. Occurrence likelihood _ Common name Species name Statusl IS/MND Data bases Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby California gull Larus californicus WL Very close Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Nearby Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP Nearby White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP Nearly Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP Nearby American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CE, CFP, BOP Nearby Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby Burrowing owl Bubo virginianus BCC, SSC2, BOP Nearby Great-horned owl Athene cunicularia SSC2, BOP Nearby Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii BOP In region Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby Lewis's woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region Nuttall's woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby Costa's hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby Allen's hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby 8 Page 1637 Occurrence likelihood Common name Species name Statusl IS/MND Data bases _ Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus BCC In region Horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Nearby California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC In region Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii CE, BCC Nearby Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 Nearby Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC _ Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Very close Least Bell's vireo Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Nearby Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSCi In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Nearby Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC, WL In region Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSCi In region Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 In region Lawrence's goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby Blainville's horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Nearby Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC,WBWG H In range Townsend's western big-eared bat Plecotus t. townsendii SSC,WBWG H In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC,WBWG H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC,WBWG H Low In range Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG M In range Miller's myotis Myotis evotis WBWG M In region Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG H In region Long-legged myotis Myotis Volans WBWG H In range Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SSC,WBWG LM In region 9 Page 1638 Occurrence likelihood Common name Species name Statusl IS/MND , Data bases _ Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG LM In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii CE Low Nearby _ 1 Listed as FT and FE = federal threatened and endangered, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT and CE = California threatened and endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFW Code 3511), BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSCi, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively(Shuford and Gardali 2008),WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group listing as moderate or high priority. 10 Page 1639 Assuming nesting density at the project site is a fifth of the average reported by Young (1948) and Yahner (1982),then 6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied against the project's 5.2 acres would predict that 35 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young's (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young's (1948) study site typifies bird productivity,the project would prevent the production of 102 fledglings per year. After 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years,the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 11,600 birds {(nests/year x chicks/nest x number of years) + (2 adults/nest x nests/year) x (number of years + years/generation)}. The project's denial to California of 11,6Oo birds over the first century following construction would easily qualify as a significant and substantial impact. This impact has not been addressed by City of Cucamonga. If the City believes my assumed nesting density is inaccurate, then I suggest inserting another density value that is better founded,but I also predict that the productive capacity estimate would be little different from my own. The impact of habitat loss would be significant. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project's impacts from habitat loss. Habitat fragmentation,which is the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can further diminish the productive capacity of a site (Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the project site,leaving a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area, each of which is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation is one of the cumulative effects of this project that needs to be analyzed in an EIR. Wildlife Movement The IS/MND dismisses potential impacts to wildlife movement by concluding that development around the project site precludes its use as part of a wildlife movement corridor. The premise of this conclusion must be that the presence of a wildlife corridor determines whether a project would significantly interfere with wildlife movement in the region. However, this premise represents a false CEQA standard. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes one of the last of a diminishing suite of open space patches within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging opportunities, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes. The project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. An EIR needs to be prepared to address the project's impacts on wildlife movement in the region. 11 Page 1640 BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY At 6o feet tall,the project's buildings would extend into much of the bird traffic Ms. Smallwood observed at the project site. The IS/MND's rendering of the project shows facades composed of extensive structural glass, which has been the recent trend.l The project would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem's (1990) and Dunn's (1993) estimates of about 10o million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.'s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.'s (2013) and Machtans et al.'s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. However, these estimates were likely biased too low, because they were based on opportunistic sampling,volunteer study participation, fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers, and usually no adjustments made for scavenger removals of carcasses before searchers could detect them (Bracey et al. 2016). Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway. Noriko Smallwood's observations during her visit to the site confirmed that birds fly through the airspace of the project, even during the nonmigratory season. At least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2). According to the scientific literature, most of the special-status species in Table 2 have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Many more species of migratory birds, newly protected by California's revised Fish and Game Code section 3513, have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020). Nowhere in the IS/MND is there any concern expressed for bird-window collision impacts, nor is there any mitigation proposed to avoid, minimize or compensate for such impacts. As I will show in the next section, many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the proposed project. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address this potential impact. 1 Recent advances in structural glass engineering have contributed to a proliferation of glass windows on building facades. This proliferation is readily observable in newer buildings and in recent project planning documents, and it is represented by a worldwide 20%increase in glass manufacturing for building construction since 2016. Glass markets in the USA experienced 5% growth in both 2011 and 2016, and was forecast to grow 2.3%per year since 2016 (TMCapital 2o19). Increasing window to wall ratios and glass facades have become popular for multiple reasons, including a growing demand for`daylighting.' 12 Page 1641 Project Impact Prediction Predicting the impacts caused by loss of aerial habitat and the energetic costs of birds having to navigate around the buildings is possible, but I am unprepared to make such predictions. However, I am prepared to predict bird-window collision mortality. By the time of these comments I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and facades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O'Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Pefluela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, , City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). Based on a renderin of a building in the IS/MND, I estimated the proposed project would include at least 3,196 m2 of glass on its facades. This extent of glass applied to the mean fatality rate would predict at least 234 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 139-329). The 1oo-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be at least 23,363 bird deaths (95% CI: 13,871-32,855). These estimates would be perhaps 3 times higher after accounting for the proportions of fatalities removed by scavengers or missed by fatality searchers where studies have been performed. Collision fatalities would continue until the buildings are either renovated to reduce bird collisions or they come down. If the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 234 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts. Bird-Window Collision Factors Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature, and which I suggest ought to be used to draft Bird-Safe Guidelines for City of Rancho Cucamonga and which ought to be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed project. Following this list are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience. (1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other flights (2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor plants (3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace (4) Black hole or passage effect (5) Window or facade extent, or proportion of facade consisting of window or other reflective surface (6) Size of window (7) Type of glass (8) Lighting,which is correlated with window extent and building operations (9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground) (10) Orientation of facade with respect to winds and solar exposure (ii) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment 13 Page 1642 (12) Context in terms of urban-rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious surface vs vegetation (13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building (14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants (15) Relative abundance (16) Season of the year (17) Ecology, demography and behavior (18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack (19) Aggressive social interactions (1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace.—Not all of a structure's collision risk can be attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and Klem et al. (2009) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows, although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although mortality would increase with larger expanses of glass. (2)Window transparency.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior vegetation. (3) Window reflectance.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace, vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem et al. (2009) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation associated positively with collisions. (4) Black hole or passage effect.—Although this factor was not often mentioned in the bird-window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites. The deception is achieved when shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of both of these factors. It might play a significant role in the proposed project, which includes extruded window frames of many windows. (5) Window or facade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al. (2013), Ocampo-Penuela et al. (2016), Loss et al. (2019), Rebolo-Ifran et al. (2019), and Riding et al. (2020) reported increased collision fatalities at buildings with larger 14 Page 1643 reflective façades or higher proportions of facades composed of windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and proportion of façade that was glazed. (6) Size of window.—According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on large-pane windows compared to small-pane windows. (7) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the types of glass in buildings. (8) Lighting.—Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated positively with percent glass on the façade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an 8o% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights-out Program. However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building. (9) Height of structure.—Except for Riding et al. (2020), I found little if any hypothesis- testing related to building height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller buildings? Some of the most notorious buildings are low-rise buildings. (1o) Orientation of façade.—Some studies tested façade orientation, but not convincingly. Some evidence that orientation affects collision rates was provided by Winton et al. (2018). Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some portion of it could be attributed to orientation of façade. Whether certain orientations cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic-appearing reflections ought to be testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under façades of different orientations would help. (11) Structural layout.—Bird-safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of structural layouts associated with high rates of bird-window collisions,but little attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision rates at 3 stories of glassed-in walkways atop an open breezeway, located on a break in slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington State University. (12) Context in urban-rural gradient.—Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016). (13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building.—Correlations have sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation near windows (Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016, Ocampo- 15 Page 1644 Penuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience,what probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass facade, then birds coming from that glass will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the facade to result in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 m away, and birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at the windows. (14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P < 0.001)between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds counted at feeders. However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold. (15) Relative abundance.—Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings. (16) Season of the year.—Borden et al. (2010) found 9o% of collision fatalities during spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words, the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying seasonally-explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions into the glass facades of the project's building would likely be concentrated in fall and spring migration periods. (17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds were not found as common window-caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al. (2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible to collision than resident birds. (18) Predatory attacks.—Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of window strike reports in Dunn's (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper's hawks chasing birds into windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide with the project's windows would include Peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk. (19)Aggressive social interactions.—I found no hypothesis-testing of the roles of aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have 16 Page 1645 witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the birds hitting a window. For most of the known or suspected collision risk factors, the proposed project's design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk. Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight. Window Collision Solutions Given the magnitude of bird-window collision impacts, there are obviously great opportunities for reducing and minimizing these impacts going forward. Existing structures can be modified or retrofitted to reduce impacts, and proposed new structures can be more carefully sited, designed, and managed to minimize impacts. However, the costs of some of these measures can be high and can vary greatly, but most importantly the efficacies of many of these measures remain uncertain. Both the costs and effectiveness of all of these measures can be better understood through experimentation and careful scientific investigation. Post-construction fatality monitoring should be an essential feature of any new building project. Below is a listing of mitigation options, along with some notes and findings from the literature. Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more facades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post-construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective. (1)Retrofitting to reduce impacts (iA) Marking windows (1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation (iC) Managing indoor landscape vegetation (iD) Managing nocturnal lighting (iA) Marking windows.— Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Penuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings —the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film.At the building with fritted glass,bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed facades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland 17 Page 1646 Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94%by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland's Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rossler et al. 2015). Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my windows during the 10 years hence. In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations. (2)Siting and Designing to minimize impacts (2A) Deciding on location of structure (2B) Deciding on facade and orientation (2C) Selecting type and sizes of windows (2D) Designing to minimize transparency through two parallel facades (2E) Designing to minimize views of interior plants (2F) Landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs (3)Monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts (3A) Systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns (3B) Adjust light management, window marking and other measures as needed. TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE According to the IS/MND (page 45), the project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled. This VMT prediction provides a basis for predicting one of the most important potential project impacts to wildlife. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal,bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per loo km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per loo km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local or regional impacts can be more intense than at the national level. In a recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, investigators found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals,birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Using carcass detection trials performed on land immediately adjacent to the traffic mortality study(Brown et al. 2016) to adjust the found fatalities for the proportion of fatalities not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error, the estimated traffic-caused fatalities was 12,187. This fatality estimate translates to a rate 18 Page 1647 of 3,90o wild animals per mile per year killed. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,74o animals killed per 10o km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.'s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife. Increased use of existing roads would increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts would far exceed the impacts of land conversion to use for a warehouse. Wildlife roadkill is not randomly distributed, and so it can be predicted. Causal factors include types of roadway, human population density, and temperature (Chen and Wu 2014), as well as time of day and adjacency and extent of vegetation cover(Chen and Wu 2014, Bartonicka et al. 2018), and intersections with streams and riparian vegetation (Bartonicka et al. 2018). For example, species of mammalian Carnivora are killed by vehicle traffic within o.1 miles of stream crossings >4o times other than expected (K. S. Smallwood, 1989-2018 unpublished data). Reptiles are killed on roads where roadside fences end or where fences are damaged (Markle et al. 2017). There has even been a function developed to predict the number of golden eagles killed along the road,where the function includes traffic volume and density of road-killed animals available for eagles to scavenge upon (Lonsdorf et al. 2018). These factors also point the way toward mitigation measures, which should be formulated in an EIR. Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The IS/MND predicts the project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled. This prediction translates to 5,979,43o annual vehicle miles traveled. This is a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating (Photos 10 and ii). Despite the obvious risk to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the IS/MND does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Photo io. A Gambel's quail dashes across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. - - 19 Page 1648 Photo li. A mourning dove killed by vehicle traffic on a California road. Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020. • 1 ,; • • • For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,90o animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice,but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks,American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red- legged frogs,but also Sierran treefrogs,western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards,but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,50o cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of wildlife fatalities was 19,50o cars and trucks x 2.5 miles x 365 days/year x 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. Based on the daily VMT predicted by the IS/MND, the project would generate 5,979,43o vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality,would predict 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 5o years would accumulate 163,82o wildlife fatalities. It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway,thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts. The Project's toll on wildlife could be even higher than I predict. The IS/MND does not address this impact in the least. Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze this impact. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. 20 Page 1649 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The IS/MND implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. It states, "As previously discussed, impacts related to the proposed Project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed Project's contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable." If the IS/MND accurately represented CEQA's standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. And if that was the standard,then I must point out that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds. But the IS/MND's implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis. The IS/MND has misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis.An EIR needs to be prepared, and it needs to include an appropriate, serious analysis of cumulative impacts. When it comes to wildlife, cumulative effects can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity(Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale. In the case of migrating birds, the project's cumulative effects could be measured as numerical reductions of breeding birds at far-off breeding sites as migrating adults and next-year's recruits lose access to stop-over habitat. In the cases of wildlife species that are susceptible to traffic collisions, the project's contribution to ongoing and foreseeable traffic-caused mortality can be measured or predicted. Even crude predictions of cumulative impacts are imperative. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address the project's potential contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife in the region. MITIGATION BIO-i: Preconstruction survey for breeding birds The IS/MND proposes preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats. Preconstruction surveys should be performed, but not as substitute for detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts,let alone to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; they are not even designed to assess impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special- status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys. Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them. Detection surveys were designed by species 21 Page 1650 experts, often undergoing considerable deliberation and review before adoption. Detection surveys often require repeated efforts using methods known to maximize likelihoods of detection. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures, because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either. What is missing from the IS/MND, and what is in greater need than preconstruction surveys, are detection surveys consistent with guidelines and protocols that wildlife ecologists have uniquely developed for use with each special-status species. What is also missing is compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts. Following detection surveys, preconstruction surveys should be performed. However, an EIR should be prepared, and it should detail how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Without reporting the results, preconstruction surveys are vulnerable to serving as an empty gesture rather than a mitigation measure. For these reasons, this mitigation measure is insufficient to reduce the project's impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. RECOMMENDED MEASURES Detection Surveys Detection surveys are needed for each of the special-status species in Table 2. Detection surveys are needed for nesting birds and for bats. For bats, I recommend deployment of acoustic detectors and use of thermal-imaging. For birds, I recommend a rigorous nest survey in the absence of an impending construction schedule, including the mapping of nest sites of each species. Because ground squirrels occur in the project area,breeding- season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented (CDFW 2012),but they should be implemented prior to the circulation of an EIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts. Habitat Loss and Wildlife Movement The IS/MND provides no mitigation for adverse impacts from habitat loss or to regional movement of wildlife. At a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the project's impacts from habitat loss and interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. The proposed project site composes one of the last patches of open space available to birds and bats on long-distance dispersal or migration flights. Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions If the project goes forward, it should adhere to the available guidelines prepared by American Bird Conservancy and the Cities of New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy(ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines that recommend actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off 22 Page 1651 lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society(Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department's (2011)building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City,but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess efficacy and to quantify post- construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. Road Mortality Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that will be caused by the project's contribution to increased road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below). Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the injuries will likely be caused by the increased trip generation of cars and trucks. Many animals need treatment caused by collision injuries and an increasing number appear to be injured by the turbulence of passing trucks. Thank you for your attention, Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. REFERENCES CITED AECOM. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project,Appendix B: Biological Resources Assessment. Report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. 23 Page 1652 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/1o.1371/journal.pone.0178667 Bartonicka, T., R. Andragik, M. Dula, J. Sedonik, and M. Bi1. 2018. Identification of local factors causing clustering of animal-vehicle collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management. Journal of Wildlife Management DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21467 Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias 92(i): e2o180745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745• Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202. Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart,A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52. Bracey,A. M., M.A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367. Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. CDFW(California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. Calvert,A. M., C.A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/1o.5751/ACE-00581-080211 Chen, X. and S. Wu. 2014. Examining patterns of animal—vehicle collisions in Alabama, USA. Human-Wildlife Interactions 8:235-244. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon. 24 Page 1653 City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2021. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. Prepared by AECOM for CRP/WP Alta Cuvee Venture, LLC. Rancho Cucamonga, California. Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species: urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1-20. DOI 10.1007/511252-015-0459-3. Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette,A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall,V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. Gelb,Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470. Gomez-Moreno,V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Nino-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitologia 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/1o.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347 Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2:e460 DOI 10.7717/peerJ.460. Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564• Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:203-211. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371• doi:1o.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e14460o DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.o144600. 25 Page 1654 Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report. Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406-411. Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz,Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134. Kobylarz, B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10-15. Kummer J.A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window collisions at residential houses.Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI 10.5751/ACE-00787-100206. Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to identify factors affecting bird-window collision risk at houses. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.165o/CONDOR-16-26.1 Lonsdorf, E. C.A. Sanders-Reed, C. Boal, and T. D.Allison. 2018. Modeling golden eagle-vehicle collisions to design mitigation strategies. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1633-i644. Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771. Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird—building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.165o/CONDOR-13-o90.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles,A. W.Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North 26 Page 1655 American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): eo224164. https://doi.org/1o.1371/journal. pone.0224164 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows.Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/1o.5751/ACE-oo568-080206 Markle, C. E., S. D. Gillingwater, R. Levick, P. Chow-Fraser. 2017. The true cost of partial fencing: evaluating strategies to reduce reptile road mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:342-35o. Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California. Ocampo-Penuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI1o.7717/peerj.1652 O'Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149. Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679. Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird—building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94. Porter,A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Rebolo-Ifran, N.,A. di Virgilio, and S. A. Lambertucci. 2019. Drivers of bird-window collisions in southern South America: a two-scale assessment applying citizen science. Scientific Reports 9:18148 I https://doi.org/1o.1o38/s41598-o19-54351-3 Riding, C. S., T. J. O'Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird—window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1-14. Rossler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535-541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 27 Page 1656 Rosenberg, K. V.,A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer,A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C. Stanton,A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019). Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R.A. Fuller. 2014. Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395-402, doi:10.1890/130237. Sabo,A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer,A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018. Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerJ.4562 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, end Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. Shuford,W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H.A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1-19. Taylor, R.A. J., and L. R. Taylor. 1979. A behavioral model for the evolution of spatial dynamics. Pp. 1-28 in R. M.Anderson, B. D. Turner, and L. R. Taylor (editors). Population dynamics. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber,A. M. Calvert,A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054• doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054• 28 Page 1657 TMCapital. 2019. 2019 Building products report: enduring growth beyond short-term challenges. https://www.tmcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2o19/08/ BuildingProd AnnualReport 2019-08-14.pdf Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626. Winton, R. S., N. Ocampo-Penuela, and N. Cagle. 2018. Geo-referencing bird-window collisions for targeted mitigation. PeerJ 6:e4215; DOI 10.7717/peerJ.4215 Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175. Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47. Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird-building collisions: a status update on "Project Birdsafe." The Loon 82:34-37. 29 Page 1658 Exhibit C S WA P E Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 2656 29th Street,Suite 201 Santa Monica,CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G,C.Hg. (949)887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310)795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com September 30, 2021 Richard Drury Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Comments on the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Dear Mr. Drury, We have reviewed the August 2021 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND")for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project ("Project") located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City").The Project proposes to construct a 260-unit apartment building, 3,339-SF of commercial space, 5,500-SF of amenity space, as well as a total of 465 parking spaces, on the 5.2-acre site. Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment. Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 4-8).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data,total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known,the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model,the Project's 1 CAPCOA(November 2017)CalEEMod User's Guide, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Page 1660 construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated.These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected. When reviewing the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Impacts Assessment ("AQAssessment") and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Assessment ("GHG Assessment") as Appendix A and Appendix F to the IS/MND, respectively,we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result,the Project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated.As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" and "Alta Cuvee Bus Bay" models include a reduction to the default CO2 intensity factor(see excerpts below) (Appendix A, pp. 30, 91; Appendix F, pp. 28, 87). "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" ITable blame I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblProjectCharacteristics CC2lntensiryFactor 702.44 531.03 .5 a- a "Alta Cuvee Bus Bay" Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New value tblPrajectCharacteristics CC2lntensityFactor 702.44 471.24 i As you can see in the excerpts above, the CO2 intensity factor was decreased from the default value of 702.44-to 531.98-and 471.24-pounds per megawatt hour("lbs/MWhr"), respectively, in the models. As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data"table, the justifications for this change are (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 26, 91; Appendix F, pp. 23, 86): • "Electricity supplied by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility, which is not available as input selection. SCE used as surrogate" • "SB 100 mandates 44% renewable by end of 2024. SCE CO2 factor assumes 40% renewables when operations begin. SCE 2019 power mix= 36% renewables" However, these justifications remain insufficient. Review of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Content Label demonstrates that the City's CO2 intensity factor is 630 lbs/MWh (see excerpt below)3: 2 CalEEMod User Guide,available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p.2,9 3 2020 POWER CONTENT LABEL, Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility,available at: https://cityofrc.prod.acquia- sites.com/sites/default/files/2021-08/E N G-RCM U%20PCL%202020.pdf. 2 Page 1661 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity(lbs CO2eIMWh) City of Rancho 2020 CA Utility Average Cucamonga 630 466 1000 800 •City of Rancho 600 - Cucamonga 400 ■2020 CA 200 Utility Average 0 As such,the CO2 intensity factor is underestimated by approximately 98-and 159-lbs/MWhr, respectively. These inconsistencies present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the CO2 intensity factor to calculate the Project's GHG emissions associated with electricity use.4 Thus, by including an underestimated CO2 intensity factor,the models underestimate the Project's potential GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Model All Required Parking Regarding the amount of required and proposed parking on the Project site,the IS/MND provides the following table (see excerpt below) (p. 1-15,Table 1-2): Table 1-2. Required and Proposed Parking Floorplan Units Required Total Parking Total Parking Requested Parking Per Required Proposed Parking Unit Exception A (1 Bedroom) 184 1.5 276 B (2 Bedroom) 55 2 110 C (3 Bedroom) 20 2 40 414 13(3%) Live/Work (1 1 1.5 1 Bedroom) Commercial 3,339 SF 1 space/250 4 4 9 (69%) SF Guests 260 0.33 86 47 39 (45%) Total 260 - 526 465 61112%) Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Table 11.64.650-1 for multi-family development Note:The parking code requires more than half of the parking for multifamily development to be garaged;the proposed Project does not provide dedicated garages for reach unit 4"CalEEMod User's Guide."CAPCOA, November 2017,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 17. 3 Page 1662 Additionally, regarding the requested parking exception,the IS/MND states: "The 12 percent parking reduction would require a minor exception approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga.The parking exception must be compatible with the surrounding area and adjoining uses. In compliance with the City Code, a parking management plan (Appendix I) has been completed to demonstrate how the proposed land uses would utilize the parking spaces, assign parking spaces to apartment units, and support the 12 percent parking reduction." As demonstrated above,the Project is pending approval from the City to reduce the amount of parking by 12%,from 526 to 465 spaces.As this request is yet to be approved, the model should have included the entire amount of required parking in order to conduct the most conservative analysis. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use" model includes only 465 parking spaces' (Appendix A, pp. 25; Appendix F, pp. 23). Land Uses Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area I Population General Office Building 7.60 1000sg0 i 0 00 4,900.00 1 0 1 1 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 265.00 Space 0 00 106,606.00 1 • 1 0 i F I Parking Lot 20000 Space 180 80,OW.00 0 1 1 I City Park • 0.33 Acre i 0 33 14,374 80. 1 0 F Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 1000sgfl 0 07 3,060.00 1 0 - Apartments Mid Rise 250 00 i F Dwelling Unit 3 00 228,606 00 1 785 I Condo/Townhouse • 1.00 Dwelling Unit F 000 157000 i 3 Step Mall 3.34 1 1000sgfl 0 00 3,33900 0 As you can see in the excerpt above, the total amount of required parking is underestimated by 61 spaces.This is incorrect, as we are unable to verify if the City will approve or deny the Project's requested parking exception. This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the square footage of parking for certain calculations such as determining the area to be painted and stripped (i.e.,VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume to be ventilated (i.e., energy impacts).6 Thus, by failing to include the total amount of required parking spaces,the model underestimates the Project's construction-related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Use Size According to the IS/MND,the Project proposes to construct "259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet" (p. 1-13). Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the correct number of residential units (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 25; Appendix F, pp. 23). 5 265 "Enclosed Parking with Elevator"spaces+200"Parking Lot"spaces=465 6"CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2. 4 Page 1663 Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area I Population General Office Building 7.60 1000sgfl i 0 00 4,900 00 I 0 i - Enclosed Parking with Elevator 20500 Space b 0 00 106,DOD_00 i 0 F ; i Parking Lot 200.00 Space 1 80 i 80,000 OD i 0 - ; ; F I k City Park 0.33 Acre i 0 33 14,374 80 I 0 F Recreational Swimming Pool • 3.00 1000sgfl 0 07 i 30D0 00 i 0 1 1 .- I Apartments Mid Rise 25000 Dwelling Unit 3 00 228,DOD_00 I 785 Condofiownhouse • 1.00 • Dwelling Unit 1 0 00 1570 00 I 3 Step Mall • 3.34 1000sgfl 0 00 3,335.00 0 However,further review demonstrates that the square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area was reduced from the default value of 259,000-to 228,000-SF (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 29; Appendix F, pp. 27). ITable Name Column Name I Default Value New Value r tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 259,000 00 228,000 00 I As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.'According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for this change is: "Site Plan; Project population" (Appendix A, pp. 25;Appendix F, pp. 23). Furthermore, as previously stated,the IS/MND indicates that the apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF (p. 1-13).Thus, the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185-SF8 to 354,053-SF.9 Regardless, as the IS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use, the reduction to the default floor surface area is unsubstantiated. This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model's calculations.The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts).10 Thus, by including an unsubstantiated reduction to the residential floor surface area, the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational emissions, and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 27; Appendix F, pp. 25). 'CalEEMod User Guide,available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p.2,9 8 Calculated: 715-SF * 259 units= 185,185-SF total. 9 Calculated: 1,367-SF * 259 units=354,053-SF total. 10 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 28. 5 Page 1664 Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior • 106.00 50.00 4 } — tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating • EF_Nonresidential_Interior 10090 50.00 4 + — tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nanresidential_Interiar 100.O0 50.00 iblAreaCoating • Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exteriar 100 50 iblAreaCoating • Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100 50 4 4- As you can see in the excerpt above, the nonresidential exterior and interior architectural and area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default value of 100-to 50-grams per liter("g/L"). As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.11 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for these changes is: "SCAQMD Building Envelope-50 g/L" (Appendix A, 26; Appendix F, pp. 24). However,these changes remain unsupported for two reasons. First,the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the building envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113, whatsoever. Second,the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only building envelope coatings during Project construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever. As such,we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate. These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project's reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound ("ROG"/"VOC") emissions.12 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors,the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default gas fireplace values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 28; Appendix F, pp. 26). 11 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 12 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01 user-39-s- guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p.35,40. 6 Page 1665 lI Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblFireplaces Fireplace6ayYear 25.00 DM tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceHaurDay 3.60 6.06 + + - tblFireplaces FireplaceHaurDay 360 { DOD tblFireplaces 1 FireplaceWoadMass 1,01920 i D.OD 1. 1-tblFireplaces FireplaceWoadMass 1,019.20 I D.OD tblFireplaces 1 NumberGas 226.15 D.OD tblFireplaces NumberGas 0.85 DAD 4 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.96 11 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.10 I 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.95 I DOD - tblFireplaces NumberWood T 0_D5 + D.OD T -L As you can see in the excerpt above, the model assumes that the Project would not include any gas fireplaces. As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.13 However,the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table fails to provide a justification (Appendix A, pp. 25-27; Appendix F, pp. 23-25). Furthermore,the IS/MND indicates that the east building would include a courtyard with an outdoor fireplace (p. 1-13).As such,the IS/MND states at least one fireplace would be installed on the Project site. However,the IS/MND fails to mention or justify the assumption that no gas fireplaces would be included in the residential building. As such, we cannot verify the revised number of gas fireplaces. This potential underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the number of gas fireplaces to calculate the Project's area-source operational emissions.14 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the number gas fireplaces,the model may underestimate the Project's area-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Solid Waste Generation Rates Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several reductions to the default solid waste generation rates (see excerpts below) (Attachment A, pp. 30; Appendix F, pp. 28). Table Name Column Name Default Value I New Value I tblSolidWaste 4 SolidWasteGeneratianRate 119.14 119.60 J bl5olidWaste SolidWasteGeneratianRate 7.67 6 OD tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGeneratianRate 17.16 G.D6 As you can see in the excerpt above, the total solid waste generation rate was cumulatively decreased by 23.71 tons per year("tons/year").15 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires 13 CalEEMod User's Guide,available at::http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01 user-39-s- guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2,9. 14 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p.40. 15 Calculated: (119.14 tons/year+7.07 tons/year+17.10 tons/year)-(119.60 tons/year)=23.71 tons/year. 7 Page 1666 any changes to model defaults be justified.16 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non- Default Data" table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Remove duplicate waste generation" (Appendix A, 26; Appendix F, pp. 24). Furthermore, regarding the Project's anticipated solid waste generation rate, the IS/MND states: "It is anticipated that the proposed Project would accommodate approximately 788 future residents, and operational activities would generate approximately 1.6 tons per day of solid waste during Project operation" (p.4-73). As demonstrated above,the Project anticipates generating 1.6 tons of solid waste per day, or roughly 584 tons/year.17 However,the model includes a total of only 123.6 tons/yearl8(see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 85; Appendix F, pp. 82). Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MTiyr Apartments Mid 119.6 24.2777 r 1.4348 r 0.0000 ,0.1170 Rise City Park 0.03 6.0900e- 3.6000e r C.000O 0.0151 003 ; 004 ; r Condofrownhous 0.46 0.0934T5.5200e 0.0000 T 0.23.3 e 003 r r i Enclosed Parking 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator General Office 0 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 Building Parking Lot 0 0.0000 D.OcooTi-o.coo-o[77 0.0000 Recreational 0 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 r 0.0000 Swimming Pool Strip Mall 3.51 0.7125 0.0421 0.0000 1.7652 Total 25.0897 1.4828 0.0000 62.1586 As such,the solid waste included in the model is underestimated by 460.4 tons/year.19 Thus,the model is inconsistent with the information provided in the IS/MND. This underestimation presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the solid waste generation rates to calculate the Project's operation GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste into landfills.20 Thus, by including underestimated solid waste generation rates,the model underestimates the Project's operational GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. 16 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 17(1.6 tons/day)x 365 days=584 tons/year. 18(119.6 tons/year for"Apartments Mid Rise")+(0.03 tons/year for"City Park")+(0.46 tons/year for "Condo/Townhouse")+(3.51 tons/year"Strip Mall")= 123.6 tons/year of total solid waste. 19(584 tons/year proposed by the IS/MND)-(123.6 tons/year included in the model) 20 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p.46. 8 Page 1667 Underestimated Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Percentages Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use" model includes several changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpts below) (Appendix A, pp. 28-29;Appendix F, pp. 26-27). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value I tblFleetM ix HHD 0.07 DOD + - tblFleetMix 4. HHD 0D7 0.OD 4 + - tblFleetM ix LDA • 0.56 0.60 tblFleetM ix LDA • 0.56 0.60 + - tblFleetM ix LDT1 • 0.04 0.06 tblFleetM ix I LDT1 • 0.04 6.06 tblFleetM ix LDT2 0.18 0.19 4 + - tblFleetM ix LDT2 • 0.18 0 19 tblFleetM ix I LHD1 • 0.01 0.02 • + - tblFleetMix 4. LHD1 0.01 0.02 4 -1- tIDIFIeethl ix ix LHD2 • 4.7940e-003 5.0000e-003 . tblFleetM ix LHD2 4.7940e-003 5.0000e-003 i 4 tbIFIeetMix M CY • 5.7250e-003 0.01 4 + - tb I FI eetM ix M CY • 5.7250e-003 0.01 tblFleetM ix MDV • 0.11 0.12 4 + - tblFleetMix MDV • 0.11 0.12 tbIFIeetMix I MH • 8.3060e-004 0.00 tbIFIeetMix MI-I 8.3060e-004 0.00 4 + - tblFleetMix MHD • 0.02 0.00 tbIFIeetMix MHD • 0.02 0 00 • + - tbIFIeetMix ()BUS • 1.3650e-003 0.00 4 + - tblFleetMix ()BUS • 1.3650e-603 0 00 tbIFIeetMix 4. SBUS 7.9900e-004 0.00 + - tblFleetMix SBUS • 7.9900e-004 0 00 tbIFIeetMix I UBUS • 1 4910e-603 0.90 tbIFIeetMix UBUS 1 4910e-003 0 00 + As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.21 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Residential Trips" (Appendix A, pp. 27;Appendix F, pp. 25). However, these changes remain unsupported, as the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the operational vehicle fleet mix or justify the revised percentages whatsoever.According to the CalEEMod User's Guide: 21 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 9 Page 1668 "CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project- specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA" (emphasis added).22 Here, as the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, we cannot verify the changes. These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as operational vehicle fleet mix percentages are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project's operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles.23 Thus, by including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix,the model may underestimate the Project's mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes several changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 30; Appendix F, pp. 28). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblOffRaadEquipment HorsePower 78.06 — 15.60 ILrI i tblCffRaadEquipment HorsePower • 76.06 15.00 As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.24 According to the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data" table,the justification provided for these changes is: "Project Inventory" (Appendix A, pp. 26;Appendix F, pp. 24). However, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention or justify the revised horsepower values whatsoever. According to the CalEEMod User's Guide: "CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or project- specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA" (emphasis added).25 Here, as the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised horsepower values, we cannot verify the changes. These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses horsepower values to calculate emissions associated with off-road construction equipment.26 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values,the model may underestimate the 22 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User's Guide,available at:http://www.aq_md.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12. 23 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 24 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 25 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User's Guide,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12. 26 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 32. 10 Page 1669 Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the following construction-related mitigation measure (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 38; Appendix F, pp. 36): 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.27 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data"table,the justification provided for this inclusion is: "SCAQMD Rule 403" (Appendix A, pp. 24;Appendix F, pp. 22). However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned construction-related mitigation measure remains unsupported for two reasons. First,the inclusion of the construction-related mitigation measures, based on the Project's compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, is unsupported.According to the Association of Environmental Professionals ("AEP") CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures: "By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts."28 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design and are intended to go above-and-beyond existing regulatory requirements.As such,the inclusion of these measures, based solely on SCAQMD Rule 403, is unsubstantiated. Second, according to the above-mentioned AEP report: "While not 'mitigation', a good practice is to include those project design feature(s)that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project 27 CalEEMod User Guide,available at:http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2,9 28"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p.5. 11 Page 1670 that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact."29 As you can see in the excerpts above, project design features ("PDFs")that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether.Thus, as the above- mentioned construction-related measure is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. By including a construction-related mitigation measures without properly committing to its implementation,the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project" model includes the following energy-, area-, and water-related operational mitigation measures (see excerpts below) (Attachment A, pp. 72, 77, 79; Appendix F, pp. 70, 75, 77): Energy-Related Mitigation Measures: 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 Install High Efficiency Lighting Install Energy Efficient Appliances Area-Related Mitigation Measures: 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area No Hearths Installed Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies Water-Related Mitigation Measures: 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Use Water Efficient Irrigation System 29"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://cegaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 12 Page 1671 As a result of the above-mentioned water-related operational mitigation measures,the model includes an efficient irrigation water use reduction of 20% (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 32;Appendix F, pp. 30). Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value r tblWaterMAitigation •UseWaterEfficientlrngationSystemPercen� 6.I 26 L [Reduction a a As previously mentioned,the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.30 However the "User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data"table, only provides justification for the inclusion of the area-related operational mitigation measures,which states: "SCAQMD Rule 1113" (Appendix A, pp. 27;Appendix F, pp. 25). Furthermore, regarding sustainable design features,the IS/MND states: "The proposed Project would be designed to exceed the 2019 Title 24 energy efficient standards by approximately 7.2 percent in one building and by approximately 2.5 percent in the other, approximately 10 percent more efficient than 2016 Title 24 standards [...] Water and energy efficient mechanical equipment and electric appliances (i.e., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning(HVAC), water heaters, kitchen appliances and plumbing) that require less usage intensity for operation and comply with Title 24 of the California Government Code" (p. 1-15). However,the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures remains unsupported for two reasons. First,the inclusion of the operational mitigation measures, based on the Project's purported compliance with Title 24 and SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsupported.As previously stated, according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures: "By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts."31 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures "are not part of the original project design" and are intended to go "above-and-beyond" existing regulatory requirements. As such,the inclusion of these measures, based on the Project's vague compliance with Title 24 and SCAQMD Rule 1113, is unsubstantiated. 3°CalEEMod User's Guide,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/01 user-39-s- guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 2,9. 31"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p.5. 13 Page 1672 Second, the IS/MND fails to formally include the above-mentioned design features as Project-level mitigation measures.This is incorrect, as AEP guidance states: "While not "mitigation", a good practice is to include those project design feature(s)that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact" (emphasis added).32 As you can see in the excerpt above, design features that are not formally included as mitigation measures in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether.Thus, as the above-mentioned energy-, area-, and water-related operational measures are not formally included as mitigation measures,we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.As a result,the inclusion of the above- mentioned operational mitigation measures in the model is incorrect. By including several operational mitigation measures without properly committing to their implementation,the model may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Failure to Provide Summer and Winter CalEEMod Output Files As previously discussed,the IS/MND's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated by CalEEMod.2016.3.2 (p. 4-8).33 CalEEMod provides three types of output files—annual, summer, and winter. Specifically,the CalEEMod User's Guide states: "The available reports include: Annual, Summer(peak) Daily, Winter(peak) Daily, Mitigation and Summary of peak daily emissions and annual GHG emissions.34 As demonstrated above,the CalEEMod summer and winter output files provide peak daily emissions estimates in pounds per day("lbs/day"). Furthermore,the IS/MND quantifies the Project's construction- related and operational maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions and compares them to the applicable SCAQMD thresholds (see excerpts below) (p.4-8,Table 4.3-14-9,Table 4.3-2). 32"CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures."AEP, February 2020,available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 33 CAPCOA(November 2017)CalEEMod User's Guide, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 34 CAPCOA(November 2017)CalEEMod User's Guide, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p.61. 14 Page 1673 Table 4.3-1.Maximum Regional Daily Emissions During Construction VDC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 (Ibslday) (Ibslday) (Ibslday) (Ibslday) (lbs/day) (Ibslday) Maximum Regional Daily Emissions 29.1 69.8 81.3 0.2 8.9 4.1 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Source:TAHA 2021 CO=carbon monoxide;lbs/day=pounds per day;NOx=nitrogen oxide;PM10=particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter;PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;SOx=sulfur oxide;VOC=volatile organic compounds Table 4.3-2.Daily Operational Emissions (2024} VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 (Ibslday) (Ibslday) (Ibslday) (Ibslday) (lbs/day) (Ibslday) Daily Operational Emissions' 8.7 6.0 56.3 0.1 12.8 3.6 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Source:TAHA 2021 'I Includes area(e.g.,consumer products and landscaping), energy(consumption of energy), and mobile(e.g., vehicle trips)sources CO=carbon monoxide;Ibslday=pounds per day;NOx=nitrogen oxide;PM10=particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter;PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter;SOx=sulfur oxide;VOC=volatile organic compounds However, review of the AQ Assessment and GHG Assessment demonstrates that the summer and winter CalEEMod output files are not disclosed. As such, we cannot verify that the above-mentioned emissions estimates are an accurate reflection of the peak daily emissions reported in the IS/MND's CalEEMod output files. As the IS/MND fails to provide the summer and winter output files,the IS/MND's air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.An EIR should be prepared to include an adequate air quality analysis and disclose all CalEEMod output files. Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis ("HRA"). Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND states: "The SCAQMD has not established a mass daily screening threshold for diesel emissions, and the only established TAC significance thresholds require estimating concentrations of TAC in ambient air resulting from project emissions using intensive air dispersion modeling. However, the low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment combined with the brevity of the construction period and local meteorological characteristics indicate that the proposed Project would not generate substantial emissions over an extended period of time that could cause a health risk to adjacent land uses. In addition,the size of the Project site indicates that only during a limited portion of construction activities would heavy-duty diesel- powered equipment be operating within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, and all construction equipment would be maintained in accordance with the CARB Portable Engine Air Toxics Control Measure and the Off-Road Diesel Regulation to control emissions to the maximum extent feasible.Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations" (p.4-11). 15 Page 1674 As demonstrated above,the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant construction-related health risk impact because the low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment,the short-term construction schedule, and the local meteorological conditions would not generate substantial toxic air contaminant ("TAC") emissions. Furthermore, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation,the IS/MND states: "The proposed Project would introduce a new multi-family residential land use to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and would be consistent with existing surrounding land use developments. Operation of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area.The proposed Project does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations.The operational emissions analysis shown in Table 4.3-2 demonstrates that operation of the proposed Project would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations.Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations" (p. 4-12). As demonstrated in the excerpt above,the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less- than-significant operational health risk impact because the Project's operational criteria air pollutants would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. However,the IS/MND fails to mention or discuss the Project's operational TAC emissions whatsoever. However,the IS/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than- significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons. First, by failing to quantitatively evaluate the Project's construction-related and operational TAC emissions,the IS/MND fails to make a reasonable effort to connect these emissions to potential health risk impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors.This is incorrect, as construction of the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter("DPM") emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of approximately 24 months (p. 1- 16). Furthermore,the IS/MND indicates that Project operation would generate approximately 1,503 average daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p.4-9). However, the IS/MND fails to discuss Project- generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project's construction-related and operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse impacts on human health. Second,the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015.This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA.The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer 16 Page 1675 risks to nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project's construction duration vastly exceeds the 2-month requirement set forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance. Furthermore,the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR"). Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore,we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30- year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA.These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions be included in an EIR for the Project. Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors,the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.35 Thus, pursuant to CEQA, an analysis of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted. Screening-Level Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk analysis we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.36 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA37 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated ("CAPCOA")"guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening analyses ("HRSAs"). A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. In order to estimate the health risk impacts posed to residential sensitive receptors as a result of the Project's construction-related and operational TAC emissions,we prepared a preliminary HRA using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the CalEEMod output files included in the IS/MND. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.The IS/MND's CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate 35"South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds."SCAQMD,April 2019,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/defau It-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significa nce- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 36 U.S. EPA(April 2011)AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 37"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf 38 CAPCOA(July 2009) Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_H RA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 17 Page 1676 approximately 799 pounds of DPM over the 735-day construction period.39 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources.To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation: grams 799.2 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate ( ) = x x x = 0.00571 g/s second 735 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00571 grams per second ("g/s"). Subtracting the 735-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project's operational DPM for an additional 28 years, approximately.The IS/MND's operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 86 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate,we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation: grams 85.8 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour Emission Rate ( ) = x x x = 0.00123 g/s second 365 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00123 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 5.2-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN with dimensions of approximately 205- by 103-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures,the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.40 The IS/MND indicates that the nearest sensitive receptors are residences 50 feet, or 15 meters, away from the project site (p.4-47,Table 4.13-4). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual resident("MEIR") is located approximately 100 meters from the Project site. Thus,the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 9.101 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.9101 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation,the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 1.967 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour 'See Attachment B for calculations. 4°"Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised." EPA, 1992,available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf;see also"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p.4-36. 18 Page 1677 concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1967 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR. We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA. Consistent with the 735-day construction schedule included in the Project's CalEEMod output files,the annualized average concentration for Project construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy(0.25 years) and the first 1.76 years of the infantile stage of life (0—2 years); and the annualized averaged concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period,which makes up the remaining and the 0.24 years of the infantile stage of life (0—2 years),the entire child stage of life, and the entire adult stage of life (16—30 years). Consistent with OEHHA guidance and recommended by the SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD guidance, we used Age Sensitivity Factors ("ASF")to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.41,42,43 According to this guidance,the quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester of pregnancy and during the first two years of life (infant), as well as multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2—16 years). We also included the quantified cancer risk without adjusting for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution in accordance with older OEHHA guidance from 2003.This guidance utilizes a less health protective scenario than what is currently recommended by SCAQMD,the air quality district with jurisdiction over the City, and several other air districts in the state. Furthermore, in accordance with the guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used the 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.44 Finally, according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home ("FAH") Value of 1 for the 3rd trimester and infant receptors.45 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days.The results of our calculations are shown below. 41"Draft Environmental Impact Report(IS/MND)for the Proposed The Exchange(SCH No.2018071058)."SCAQMD, March 2019,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/comment- letters/2019/march/RVC190115-03.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p.4. 42"California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines." BAAQMD, May 2017,available at: http://www.baagmd.gov/'/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56;see also"Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards." BAAQMD, May 2011, available at:http://www.baagmd.gov/"/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling %20Approach.ashx, p.65,86. 43"Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document."SJVAPCD, May 2015,available at:https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf, p.8, 20,24. 44"Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act,"July 2018,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588supplementalguidelines.pdf, p. 16. "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf 45"Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1,and 212."SCAQMD,August 2017,available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/defau It-source/rule-book/Proposed- Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf, p.7. 19 Page 1678 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Emissions Duration Concentration Breathing Cancer Risk Cancer Risk Age Group ASF Source (years) (ug/m3) Rate(L/kg-day) (without ASFs*) (with ASFs*) 3rd Construction 0.25 0.9101 361 1.24E-06 10 1.24E-05 Trimester Construction 1.76 0.9101 Operation 0.24 0.1967 luyc, Infant Total 2 2.71E-05 10 2.71E-04 (Age 0-2) Child Operation 14 0.1967 572 2.37E-05 3 7.12E-05 (Age 2-16) Adult Operation 14 0.1967 261 7.91E-06 1 7.91E-06 (Age 16-30) Lifetime 30 6.00E-05 3.63E-04 *We,along with CARB and SCAQMD,recommend using the more updated and health protective 2015 OEHHA guidance,which includes ASFs. As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, utilizing ASFs, is approximately 12.4, 271, 71.2, and 7.91 in one million, respectively.The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years), utilizing ASFs, is approximately 363 in one million.The 3rd trimester, infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. Utilizing ASFs is the most conservative, health-protective analysis according to the most recent guidance by OEHHA and reflects recommendations from the air district. Results without ASFs are presented in the table above, although we do not recommend utilizing these values for health risk analysis. Regardless, excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation,without ASFs, are approximately 1.24, 27.1, 23.7, and 7.91 in one million, respectively.The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years),without ASFs, is approximately 60 in one million. While we recommend the use of ASFs,the Project's infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks without ASFs, as estimated by SWAPE, exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million regardless, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection.46 The purpose of the screening-level 46"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments."OEHHA, February 2015,available at:https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 1-5 20 Page 1679 construction and operational HRA shown above is to demonstrate the link between the proposed Project's emissions and the potential health risk. Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used.Therefore, our screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact,the City should prepare an EIR analysis with an HRA which makes a reasonable effort to connect the Project's air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors.Thus,the City should prepare an updated, quantified air pollution model as well as an updated, quantified refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year("MT CO2e/year"), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year(p. 4-31,Table 4.8-1). Table 4.8-1. Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source Category Annual GHG Emissions(MTCC2e per year) Amortized Construction Emissions(Direct) 108.7 Area Source Emissions (Direct) 4.5 Energy Source Emissions (Indirect) 597.6 Mobile Source Emissions(Direct) 1,794.0 Solid Waste Disposal Emissions(Indirect) 62.2 Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment(Indirect) 101.0 Total Annual GHG Emissions 2,668.0 Threshold 3,000 Exceed Threshold? No Source: TAHA 2021 Furthermore,the IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS,the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan ("CAP") in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact(p. 4-31—4-32). However,the IS/MND's GHG analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for five reasons: (1) The IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; (3) SWAPE's updated analysis indicates a potentially significant GHG impact; (4) The IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB's Scoping Plan; and (5) The IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG's RTP/SCS. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 MT CO2e/year (p.4-31,Table 4.8-1). However,the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis is 21 Page 1680 unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQAssessment and GHG Assessment as Appendix A and Appendix F to the IS/MND, respectively, we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND.As a result, the model underestimates the Project's emissions, and the IS/MND's quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment. 2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 2,668 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p.4-31,Table 4.8-1). However,the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2/year threshold, the SCAQMD's 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as "AB 32", was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.47 Furthermore,AEP guidance states: "[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone."48 As it is currently September 2021,thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the IS/MND's less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.49 3) Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact SWAPE's updated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact,when applying the outdated SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year.The updated CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE with Project-specific information, disclose the Project's mitigated emissions,which include approximately 150 MT CO2e of total construction emissions (sum of 2022, 2023, and 2024) and approximately 3,824 MT CO2e/year of net annual operational emissions (sum of area-, energy-, mobile-, waste-, and water-related emissions). When amortizing the Project's construction-related GHG 4'HEALTH &SAFETY CODE 38550,available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes displaySection.xhtml?IawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 48"Beyond Newhall and 2020:A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California."Association of Environmental Professionals(AEP),October 2016,available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016 Final White Paper.pdf, p. 39. 49"Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group#15."SCAQMD,September 2010,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 22 Page 1681 emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project's operational GHG emissions, we estimate net annual GHG emissions of approximately 3,975 MT CO2e/year(see table below). SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Phase Proposed Project (MT CO2e/year) Construction (amortized over 30 years) 150.54 Area 67.31 Energy 785.56 Mobile 2,546.48 Waste 293.70 Water 131.08 Total Annual Operational 3,824.13 Net Annual GHG Emissions 3,974.67 Threshold 3,000 Exceed? Yes As demonstrated above,the Project's estimated net annual GHG emissions exceed the outdated SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year, thus resulting in a significant impact not previously addressed or mitigated in the IS/MND.As stated above, this threshold is outdated, and we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.50 However, as the IS/MND fails to provide the Project's estimated number of residents and employees, we are unable to compare the Project's emissions to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target. As such, an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines. 4) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan As previously discussed,the IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan to determine Project GHG significance (p.4-31). However,this is incorrect, as the IS/MND fails to consider performance-based measures proposed by CARB. i. Passenger& Light Duty VMT Per Capita Benchmarks per SB 375 In reaching the State's long-term GHG emission reduction goals, CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan explicitly cites to SB 375 and the VMT reductions anticipated under the implementation of Sustainable Community Strategies.51 CARB has identified the population and daily VMT from passenger autos and s°"Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group#15."SCAQMD,September 2010,available at:http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 51"California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan."CARB, November 2017,available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping plan 2017.pdf, p.25,98, 101-103. 23 Page 1682 light-duty vehicles at the state and county level for each year between 2010 to 2050 under a "baseline scenario" that includes "current projections of VMT included in the existing Regional Transportation Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCSs) adopted by the State's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) pursuant to SB 375 as of 2015."52 By dividing the projected daily VMT by the population, we calculated the daily VMT per capita for each year at the state and county level for 2010 (baseline year), 2022 (Project operational year), and 2030 (target years under SB 32) (see table below). 2017 Scoping Plan Daily VMT Per Capita San Bernardino County State Year Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita 2010 2,043,484 55,741,307.23 27.28 37,335,085 836,463,980.46 22.40 2024 2,327,528 62,431,182.19 26.82 41,994,283 926,776,780.89 22.07 2030 2,478,888 65,538,854.28 26.44 43,939,250 957,178,153.19 21.78 As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project's consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan performance- based daily VMT per capita projections, the IS/MND's claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is unsupported.An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. 5) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards under SCAG's RTP/SCS Here, as discussed above,the IS/MND concludes that the Project would be consistent with SCAG's RTP/SCS(p. 4-32). However, the IS/MND fails to consider whether or not the Project meets any of the specific performance-based goals underlying SCAG's RTP/SCS and SB 375, such as: i) per capita GHG emission targets, or ii) daily vehicles miles traveled ("VMT") per capita benchmarks. i. SB 375 Per Capita GHG Emission Goals SB 375 was signed into law in September 2008 to enhance the state's ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles (autos and light-duty trucks). In March 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets requiring a 19 percent decrease in VMT for the SCAG region by 2035.This goal is reflected in SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR"), in which the 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR updates the per capita emissions to 18.8 lbs/day in 2035 (see excerpt below).s3 52"Supporting Calculations for 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions," Excel Sheet"Readme."CARB, January 2019,available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 01/sp mss vmt calculations ian19 0.xlsx. ss"Connect SoCal Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report."SCAG, May 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir connectsocal complete.pdf?1607981618, p.3.8-74. 24 Page 1683 Table 3.8-10 SB 375 Analysis 2005(Baseline) 2020 IP1an1 2035(Flax) Resident population(per1,000) ]7,L 6] L9,]94 21,110 CO2 emissions(per 1,O00 tons) 204Ak 2G4.5ke 198.6ibl Per capita emissions(pounds/day) 23,8 21.3 18.8 %difference from Plan(2020)to Baseline(2005) %difference from Plan(2035)to Baseline 00051 _19% ' Note: la Based on EMFAC2O07 lb/Bused ax EMFAC 014 aid SCAG trodderrg,2029_ Id!ntho cs off-maid adjustments for 2035 and 2045 Source_ SCAC modeling,2019. hf tp:ihrwro.xrnc.ea Folromorif fee_JComorif feeDoelitrraryl joinIRCPC.i i.0 i75fuela$rydf As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project's consistency with the SCAG's per capita emissions,the IS/MND's claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG's RTP/SCS is unsupported. An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. i. SB 375 RTP/SCS Daily VMT Per Capita Target Under the SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS, daily VMT per capita in the SCAG region should decrease from 23.2 VMT in 2016 to 20.7 VMT by 2045.54 Daily VMT per capita in Los Angeles County should decrease from 22.2 to 19.2 VMT during that same period.55 Here, however,the IS/MND fails to consider any of the above-mentioned performance-based VMT targets. As the IS/MND fails to evaluate the Project's consistency with the SCAG's performance-based daily VMT per capita projections,the IS/MND's claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG's RTP/SCS is unsupported.An updated EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts. Design Features Should Be Included as Mitigation Measures Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. We recommend that the IS/MND implement all PDFs, such as including water and energy efficient mechanical equipment and electric appliances, water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems, and electric vehicle charging stations, as formal mitigation measures. As a result, we could guarantee that these measures would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. Including formal mitigation measures by properly committing to their implementation would result in verifiable emissions reductions that may help reduce emissions to less- than-significant levels. 54"Connect SoCal."SCAG,September 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138. ss"Connect SoCal."SCAG,September 2020,available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan 0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138. 25 Page 1684 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented.This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. (co, ty,2A Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations Attachment C:AERSCREEN Output Files Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV Attachment E: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV 26 Page 1685 Attachment A CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric I Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 7.60 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 4,900.00 1 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 300.00 + Space ; 0.00 120,000.00 + 0 Parking Lot 226.00 + Space ; 1.80 90,400.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,374.80 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.07 3,000.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 259,000.00 + 741 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 4 r f I. Strip Mall 3.34 1000sgft 0.00 3,339.00 0 • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor" Land Use- See SWAPE comments on "Failure to Model Required Amount of Parking" and "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Us Enclosed Parking= 57% of total, Parking Lot=43% of total parking. Page 1686 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Construction Phase- Consistent with IS/MND's model Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Architectural Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Woodstoves-Woodstoves: consistent with IS/MND's model. Fireplaces: See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values" Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Energy Use - Water And Wastewater- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Solid Waste-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Solid Waste Generation Rates" Total adds up to 584 tons/year Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Page 1687 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberGas 220.15 259.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberGas 0.85 1.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.90 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.10 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.95 0.00 . 4 I" tblFireplaces NumberWood 0.05 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 50.00 T 60.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 50.00 T 45.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 T 24.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 T 12.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 T 21,180.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 T 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 7,600.00 T 4,900.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,000.00 T 1,570.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,340.00 T 3,339.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.17 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.70 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.03 T 1.80 tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.82 T 3.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.08 T 0.00 I- 4 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount T 1.00 4.00 1 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 Page 1688 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 7 1.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 2.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 2.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 4.00 1.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 4.00 1.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblProjectCharacteristics CO2lntensityFactor i 702.44 630 r 4 • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate i 119.14 555.83 v r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber i 2,648.00 2,880.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber i 1,324.00 1,440.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber i 0.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber i 66.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 66.00 40.00 Page 1689 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual tblTripsAndVMT • VendorTripNumber • 0.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 57.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 286.00 200.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 286.00 200.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 57.00 40.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips CC_TL i 8.40 10.90 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips CNWTL i 6.90 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips CWTL i 16.60 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips DVTP i 11.00 0.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips DVTP i 11.00 0.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips DV_TP i 40.00 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL i 8.70 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP i 40.60 40.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP i 40.60 40.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HS_TL i 5.90 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP i 19.20 20.00 r . tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP i 19.20 20.00 r . tblVehicleTrips HWTL i 14.70 10.90 r • tblVehicleTrips HWTTP i 40.20 40.00 tblVehicleTrips HWTTP 40.20 • 40.00 Page 1690 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblVehicleTrips PBTP 3.00 0.00 • • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP } 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP i 15.00 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP } 86.00 100.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP } 86.00 100.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP } 45.00 100.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 6.39 5.48 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 22.75 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 5.67 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR i 2.46 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 9.10 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 42.04 24.86 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 5.86 5.48 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 16.74 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 4.84 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR i 1.05 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 13.60 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 20.43 24.86 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 6.65 5.48 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 1.89 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 5.81 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 11.03 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 33.82 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 44.32 24.86 r • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 16,874,892.64 16,940,046.66 r • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 177,429.43 0.00 tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 10,638,519.27 • 10,679,594.63 • Page 1691 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 827,895.26 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic i 12.95 7 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic i 0.05 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic i 12.95 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic i 0.05 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear i 25.00 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear i 25.00 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass i 999.60 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary Page 1692 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 •i 0.4472 i 3.9343 ; 3.8304 i 9.7000e- ; 0.2963 0.1598 i 0.4562 0.0674 i 0.1548 0.2223 0.0000 i 868.1095 ; 868.1095 i 0.0981 ; 0.0000 i 870.5612 9I I I 003 1 1 I 1 I . I I I I '9 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 e J J J J J J J J . I J J J 2023 •1 0.5684 i 3.9296 ; 5.6253 i 0.0118 ; 0.3179 0.1765 i 0.4944 0.0852 i 0.1749 0.2601 : 0.0000 i 1,036.191 ; 1,036.191 i 0.0775 ; 0.0000 1 1,038.127 9 I I I 1 I I I I . 1 I 1 I I 1 3 '9 1 I I 1 I I I I . I I I I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J . I J J J 2024 •1 1.9424 i 1.2399 ; 1.8664 i 3.9000e- ; 0.1021 0.0512 i 0.1533 0.0274 i 0.0502 0.0776 : 0.0000 i 345.0841 ; 345.0841 i 0.0325 ; 0.0000 1 345.8963 9 I I I 003 1 I I I I . I I I I 1 9 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 1 Maximum 1.9424 3.9343 5.6253 0.0118 0.3179 0.1765 0.4944 0.0852 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.191 1,036.191 0.0981 0.0000 1,038.127 11 1 1 3 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 •1 0.4472 1 3.9343 ; 3.8304 1 9.7000e- 1 0.2963 1 0.1598 1 0.4562 1 0.0674 1 0.1548 0.2223 0.0000 868.1089 1 868.1089 1 0.0981 1 0.0000 i 870.5606 9 I II I I I 003 1 I I . I 1 •� I I I . I I I J J J J J J J J i J J J1. 2023 9 0.5684 i 3.9296 ; 5.6253 i 0.0118 1 0.3179 ; 0.1765 i 0.4944 ; 0.0852 i 0.1749 0.2601 . 0.0000 1,036.190; 1,036.190 i 0.0775 ; 0.0000 i 1,038.126 9I I I I I I I I . 3 I 3 I I i 5 9I I I I I I I I . I I I •I J J J J J J J J i J J J1. 2024 •1 1.9424 i 1.2399 ; 1.8664 i 3.9000e- 1 0.1021 ; 0.0512 i 0.1533 ; 0.0274 i 0.0502 0.0776 .. 0.0000 345.0839 ; 345.0839 i 0.0325 ; 0.0000 1 345.8960 9 I I I 003 1 I I I I . I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I . I I I Maximum 1.9424 3.9343 5.6253 0.0118 0.3179 0.1765 0.4944 0.0852 0.1749 0.2601 0.0000 1,036.190 1,036.190 0.0981 0.0000 1,038.126 3 3 5 Page 1693 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG+NOX(tons/quarter) 1 3-5-2022 6-4-2022 1.4079 1.4079 2 6-5-2022 9-4-2022 1.2728 1.2728 3 9-5-2022 12-4-2022 1.3150 1.3150 4 12-5-2022 3-4-2023 1.2210 1.2210 5 3-5-2023 6-4-2023 1.1835 1.1835 6 6-5-2023 9-4-2023 1.0936 1.0936 7 9-5-2023 12-4-2023 1.0817 1.0817 8 12-5-2023 3-4-2024 1.0395 1.0395 9 3-5-2024 6-4-2024 0.9290 0.9290 10 6-5-2024 9-4-2024 1.5127 1.5127 Highest 1.5127 1.5127 Page 1694 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 1.1609 i 0.0849 : 2.7100 i 4.9000e- 1 : 0.0192 i 0.0192 : i 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 i 66.8289 : 66.8289 i 5.4300e- 1 1.1400e- � 67.3059 '� I I 1 I 004 II I I II • I I I 003 I 003i I ; J J J J J J J 4 J J J Energy •1 0.0209 i 0.1788 : 0.0766 i 1.1400e- 1 1 0.0145 i 0.0145 : i 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 i 782.0369 : 782.0369 i 0.0304 1 9.2700e- 1 785.5608 9 I I 1 003 1 I I I . I I I 1 003 I 9I I I I 1 . I 1 ;� J J J J J J J J J J J Mobile •1 0.4455 i 3.0770 : 6.0309 i 0.0274 1 2.2695 1 0.0166 i 2.2862 : 0.6082 i 0.0155 0.6237 : 0.0000 i 2,543.694:2,543.694 i 0.1116 1 0.0000 1 2,546.483 9 I I 1 3 : 3 1 1 4 '� 1 1 1 . I ;� J J J J J J J J V J J J i i i 1 1 i i : i i 1 Waste •1 1 1 1 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 118.5467 i 0.0000 : 118.5467 i 7.0059 0.0000 1 293.6945 9 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I '9 I I 1 I I I I • I I I I 1 ;� J J J J J J J J V I J J J Water •1 i 1 i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : : 0.0000 0.0000 • 5.9020 i 105.3330 : 111.2350 i 0.6110 1 0.0153 1 131.0754 9 1 I I I I I I I ; I I I I 1 '9 I I I 1 I I I I • I 1 I 1 Total 1.6273 3.3406 8.8175 0.0291 2.2695 0.0503 2.3199 0.6082 0.0492 0.6574 124.4487 3,497.893 3,622.341 7.7644 0.0257 3,824.119 1 8 9 Page 1695 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 1.1609 i 0.0849 : 2.7100 i 4.9000e- 1 : 0.0192 i 0.0192 : i 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 i 66.8289 : 66.8289 i 5.4300e- 1 1.1400e- � 67.3059 '� I I 1 I 004 II I I II , I I I 003 I 003i ; J J J J J J J V J J J Energy •1 0.0209 i 0.1788 : 0.0766 i 1.1400e- 1 1 0.0145 i 0.0145 : i 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 i 782.0369 : 782.0369 i 0.0304 1 9.2700e- 1 785.5608 9 I I : 003 1 I I I . I : 1 003 I 9 . I 1 �1 J J J J J J J J V J J J Mobile •1 0.4455 i 3.0770 : 6.0309 i 0.0274 1 2.2695 1 0.0166 i 2.2862 : 0.6082 i 0.0155 0.6237 : 0.0000 i 2,543.694:2,543.694 i 0.1116 1 0.0000 1 2,546.483 9 I I I 1 I I I I I 3 I 3 I I 1 4 9I I I I . I I I I �� J J J J J J J J V I J J J Waste •1 i i i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 118.5467 i 0.0000 : 118.5467 i 7.0059 1 0.0000 1 293.6945 9 I I I I I I I I . I i I I '9 I I 1 I I I I . I I I I i f J J J J J J J J . I J J J Water •1 i i i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • 5.9020 i 105.3330 : 111.2350 i 0.6110 1 0.0153 1 131.0754 9 1 I I I I I I I ; I i I I 1 9I I I 1 I I I I . I i I 1 Total 1.6273 3.3406 8.8175 0.0291 2.2695 0.0503 2.3199 0.6082 0.0492 0.6574 124.4487 3,497.893 3,622.341 7.7644 0.0257 3,824.119 1 8 9 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Page 1696 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 :Demolition :Demolition I3/5/2022 :4/1/2022 : 5: 20: I , , + i 1 2 :Site Preparation :Grading 4/30/2022 :5/27/2022 : 51l 20: I + , 1 i i 3 •Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Site Preparation 4/2/2022 :4/15/2022 : 51 10: I + , i , i , 4 :Construction-East Building :Building Construction 6/25/2022 :5/12/2023 : 5: 230: I + , i , i , 5 :Grading :Grading 5/28/2022 :6/24/2022 : 5: 20: I + , i , i , 6 :Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation 4/16/2022 :4/29/2022 : 5: 10: I + , i , i , 7 :Construction-West Building :Building Construction 5/13/2023 :3/29/2024 : 5: 230: I + , i , i , 8 :Paving-East Building :Paving 3/30/2024 :4/26/2024 : 5: 20: I + , 1 i i 9 :Architectural Coatings East Bldg :Architectural Coating 5/25/2024 :6/21/2024 : 51 20: I + , 1 i i 10 :Paving-West Building :Paving 4/27/2024 :5/24/2024 : 51 20: I + I I 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:Architectural Coating '6/22/2024 :7/19/2024 5' 20' Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 Acres of Paving: 1.8 Residential Indoor: 527,654; Residential Outdoor: 175,885; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,359; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,120; Striped Parking Area: 12,624(Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 11 8.00 81: 0.73 -I- Demolition :Excavators ; 1! 8.001 158' 0.38 Demolition :Generator Sets ; 2! 4.00I 84' 0.74 Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 2! 8.001 247' 0.40 + i- r Site Preparation :Crawler Tractors 2' 8.00' 212: 0.43 Page 1697 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • Site Preparation •Excavators 0• 8.00• 158• 0.38 Site Preparation Graders ; 1 8.00 187' 0.41 • y i Site Preparation Rollers ; 2 8.00 80• 0.38 • J. ; Site Preparation :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00 247• 0.40 • J. ; Site Preparation :Scrapers ; 1 8.00 367• 0.48 • J. ; Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00 97• 0.37 • J. ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00 212• 0.43 • J. ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Excavators ; 1 8.00 158• 0.38 • J. i Trenching/Utilites-East Building Rubber+ Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00 247• 0.40 • J. ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.00 97• 0.37 • J. ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Trenchers ; 2 8.00 78• 0.50 • J. ; Construction-East Building +Air Compressors ; 10 8.001 78• 0.48 • J. ; Construction-East Building :Cranes ; 1 7.001 i 231• 0.29 • J. ; Construction-East Building :Forklifts ; 0 8.00 89• 0.20 • J. i Construction-East Building Generator Sets ; 2 8.00 84• 0.74 J. ; Construction-East Building :Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2 8.00 100• 0.40 • J. ; Construction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 7.00 97• 0.37 • J. ; Construction-East Building :Welders ; 0 8.00 46• 0.45 • J. ; Grading :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00 212• 0.43 • J. ; Grading :Excavators ; 0 8.001 158• 0.38 • J. i Grading Graders ; 1 8.00 187• 0.41 • J. ; Grading :Rollers ; 2 8.00 80• 0.38 • J. ; Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00 247• 0.40 • J. ; Grading :Scrapers ; 1 8.00 367• 0.48 • J. ; Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00 97• 0.37 • J. ; Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00 212• 0.43 * r Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Excavators 1• 8.00• 158• 0.38 Page 1698 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual • Trenching/Utilities-West Building •Rubber Tired Dozers 0• 8.00• 247• 0.40 Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.001 97' 0.37 • y ; Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Trenchers ; 2 8.0O1 78• 0.50 • J. ; Construction-West Building +Air Compressors ; 10 8.001 78• 0.48 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Cranes ; 0 7.00 231' 0.29 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Forklifts ; 0 8.00 89• 0.20 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Generator Sets ; 2 8.00 84• 0.74 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2 8.001 100• 0.40 • J. i Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 7.00 97• 0.37 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Welders ; 0 8.00 46• 0.45 • J. ; Paving-East Building :Pavers ; 2 8.00 130• 0.42 • J. ; Paving-East Building :Paving Equipment ; 2 8.001 132• 0.36 • J. i Paving-East Building Rollers ; 2 8.00 80• 0.38 • J. ; Architectural Coatings East Bldg +Air Compressors ; 4 6.00 78• 0.48 • J. i Paving-West Building Pavers ; 2 8.00 130• 0.42 J. ; Paving-West Building :Paving Equipment ; 2 8.001 132• 0.36 • J. ; Paving-West Building :Rollers ; 2 8.00 80• 0.38 * r Architectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 4• 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT Page 1699 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 40.00. 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix I HDT_Mix HHDT • Site Preparation 6; 40.00i O.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix !HDT_Mix THHDT I 1 Trenching/Utilites- 6; 40.00. 0.00i 2,880.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix THHDT Construction 'East i 15: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix i HDT_Mix THHDT Q..;Irl;nn , I I , I Grading 6; 40.001 0.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix THHDT e I 1 i Trenching/Utilities- 6; 40.00. 0.00i 1,440.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix HDT_Mix THHDT \4/nn+Q..;1,1 n., , I I , I i Construction-West i 14: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix HDT_Mix T ' HHDT Q..;Irl;nn , I I , I Paving-East Building ; 6; 40.001 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix HDT_Mix THHDT Architectural Coatings y 4; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix i HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc.+Qlrl., , I I , I 1 Paving-West Building 6: 40.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix i HDT_Mix THHDT i r + i * + Architectural Coatings : 4' 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70: 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix •HDT_Mix 'HHDT \5I,-..+Old, 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I Off-Road •I 0.0256 1 0.2509 1 0.1776 1 3.5000e- 1 1 0.0122 1 0.0122 1 1 0.0114 : 0.0114 0.0000 1 30.5702 30.5702 1 6.8800e- 1 0.0000 1 30.7422 I •1 I I I 004 I I I I I I I I 003 I I •1 I I 1 I I I I I I ; I I I I 1 Total I 0.0256 0.2509 0.1776 3.5000e- 0.0122 0.0122 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 30.5702 30.5702 6.8800e- 0.0000 30.7422 004 003 Page 1700 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 7 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I Hauling -1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 9 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I MI Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 'I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 • I 1 1 1 1 II Worker 9 1.7200e- 1 1.2500e- 1 0.0131 1 4.0000e- 1 4.3900e- 1 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- • 0.0000 1 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 1 3.5107 I I I I I' 003 003' 1 005 I 003 1 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 I 005 I II I 1,Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Off-Road 4 0.0256 1 0.2509 1 0.1776 1 3.5000e- 1 1 0.0122 1 0.0122 1 1 0.0114 0.0114 � 0.0000 30.5701 1 30.5701 1 6.8800e- 1 0.0000 i 30.7422 I I I 004 I 1 I I I 1 I 003 I I 'I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I Total 0.0256 0.2509 0.1776 3.5000e- 0.0122 0.0122 0.0114 0.0114 0.0000 30.5701 30.5701 6.8800e- 0.0000 30.7422 004 003 Page 1701 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- i 0.0131 : 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 3.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.5085 1 3.5085 : 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 ' I 005 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i 1 i 0.0318 : 0.0000 : 0.0318 i 3.4400e- : 0.0000 : 3.4400e- • 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 ; I I I j •� I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 0.0255 i 0.2967 i 0.1645 : 4.3000e- i 1 0.0117 : 0.0117 i : 0.0108 : 0.0108 •• 0.0000 37.5379 : 37.5379 : 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 9 I I I 004 I I I I I • I I I 1 '� 1 I I I 1 I • I I 1 1 Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0318 0.0117 0.0435 3.4400e- 0.0108 0.0142 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 004 003 Page 1702 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- i 0.0131 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 3.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.5085 1 3.5085 : 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 I 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 i '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i 1 i 0.0318 : 0.0000 : 0.0318 i 3.4400e- : 0.0000 : 3.4400e- • 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 ; I I I j •� I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J I J t Off-Road 91 0.0255 i 0.2967 i 0.1645 : 4.3000e- i 1 0.0117 : 0.0117 i : 0.0108 : 0.0108 •• 0.0000 37.5379 : 37.5379 : 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 '� 004 I I I I • I I I '� 1 I I I 1 I • I I 1 1 Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0318 0.0117 0.0435 3.4400e- 0.0108 0.0142 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 004 003 Page 1703 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- i 0.0131 : 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 3.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.5085 1 3.5085 : 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 ' I 005 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i i i 0.0139 : 0.0000 : 0.0139 i 1.5600e- : 0.0000 : 1.5600e- • 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 ; I I I j •� I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road •i 0.0104 i 0.1111 i 0.0766 : 1.5000e- i : 5.5400e- : 5.5400e- i : 5.1000e- 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 : 13.4863 : 4.3600e- i 0.0000 1 13.5953 •� 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 1 '9 I 1 1 1 I I I I • I I 1 Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 0.0139 5.5400e- 0.0195 1.5600e- 5.1000e- 6.6600e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 004 003 003 003 003 003 Page 1704 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 8.2500e- i 0.3078 i 0.0524 : 1.0900e- i 0.0248 : 7.7000e- : 0.0256 i 6.8100e- : 7.4000e- 7.5500e- • 0.0000 i 105.4147 1 105.4147 : 5.8500e- i 0.0000 i 105.5610 •9 003 I I I 003 1 I 004 I 1 003 1 004 003 1 I I 003 I 1 91 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 •I I I I I 1 1 I I • I 1 I I i •I I I I I I 1 I I • I I I I i f J J J J J J J J • I J J J t Worker •i 8.6000e- i 6.3000e- i 6.5400e- : 2.0000e- i 2.1900e- : 1.0000e- : 2.2100e- i 5.8000e- : 1.0000e- 6.0000e- � 0.0000 i 1.7542 1 1.7542 : 5.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7554 9 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 9 I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I 005 I 1 Total 9.1100e- 0.3085 0.0589 1.1100e- 0.0270 7.8000e- 0.0278 7.3900e- 7.5000e- 8.1500e- 0.0000 107.1689 107.1689 5.9000e- 0.0000 107.3164 003 003 004 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i i 1 i 0.0139 : 0.0000 : 0.0139 i 1.5600e- : 0.0000 : 1.5600e- • 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 ; I I I j ,� I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road •i 0.0104 i 0.1111 i 0.0766 : 1.5000e- i : 5.5400e- : 5.5400e- i : 5.1000e- 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 : 13.4863 : 4.3600e- i 0.0000 1 13.5953 9 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 •003 I I 003 I 1 •1 I 1 I 1 1 I I • I I 1 Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 0.0139 5.5400e- 0.0195 1.5600e- 5.1000e- 6.6600e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 004 003 003 003 003 003 Page 1705 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 8.2500e- i 0.3078 i 0.0524 : 1.0900e- i 0.0248 : 7.7000e- : 0.0256 i 6.8100e- : 7.4000e- 7.5500e- • 0.0000 i 105.4147 1 105.4147 : 5.8500e- i 0.0000 i 105.5610 9 003 I I I 003 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 1 I I 003 I 1 91 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9 J J J J J J J J • I J J J Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000t 0.0000 •I I I I I 1 I I . I 1 I I i•I I I I I I 1 I I • I I I I if J J J J J J J J • I J J J t Worker •i 8.6000e- i 6.3000e- i 6.5400e- : 2.0000e- i 2.1900e- : 1.0000e- : 2.2100e- i 5.8000e- : 1.0000e- 6.0000e- � 0.0000 i 1.7542 1 1.7542 : 5.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7554 9 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 9 I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I 005 I 1 Total 9.1100e- 0.3085 0.0589 1.1100e- 0.0270 7.8000e- 0.0278 7.3900e- 7.5000e- 8.1500e- 0.0000 107.1689 107.1689 5.9000e- 0.0000 107.3164 003 003 004 003 004 003 003 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 0.2658 i 2.1099 i 2.5492 4.3700e- i 0.1106 0.1106 i 0.1092 0.1092 0.0000 i 376.9132 376.9132 0.0415 i 0.0000 i 377.9505 •1'1 I I I 003 I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I Total 0.2658 2.1099 2.5492 4.3700e- 0.1106 0.1106 0.1092 0.1092 0.0000 376.9132 376.9132 0.0415 0.0000 377.9505 003 Page 1706 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 6.6700e- i 0.2488 i 0.0495 : 7.1000e- i 0.0170 : 3.8000e- : 0.0174 i 4.9100e- : 3.6000e- 5.2800e- i 0.0000 i 68.0115 1 68.0115 : 4.4600e- i 0.0000 i 68.1231 9 003 004 004 003 004 003 I 003 1 1 9 . 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.0581 i 0.0422 i 0.4411 : 1.3100e- i 0.1480 : 9.4000e- : 0.1490 i 0.0393 : 8.6000e- 0.0402 : 0.0000 i 118.4104 1 118.4104 : 3.0800e- i 0.0000 i 118.4875 9 I I I 003 I I 004 I I I 004 • I I I 003 I I '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0648 0.2910 0.4906 2.0200e- 0.1650 1.3200e- 0.1664 0.0442 1.2200e- 0.0455 0.0000 186.4219 186.4219 7.5400e- 0.0000 186.6105 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 0.2658 i 2.1099 i 2.5492 : 4.3700e- i : 0.1106 : 0.1106 i : 0.1092 : 0.1092 •. 0.0000 i 376.9128 : 376.9128 : 0.0415 i 0.0000 i 377.9500 9 I I I 003 I I I I I • I I I '� I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 0.2658 2.1099 2.5492 4.3700e- 0.1106 0.1106 0.1092 0.1092 0.0000 376.9128 376.9128 0.0415 0.0000 377.9500 003 Page 1707 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 6.6700e- i 0.2488 i 0.0495 ; 7.1000e- i 0.0170 ; 3.8000e- ; 0.0174 i 4.9100e- I 3.6000e- 5.2800e- i 0.0000 i 68.0115 1 68.0115 ; 4.4600e- i 0.0000 i 68.1231 9 003 004 004 003 004 003 I 003 1 1 9 . 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.0581 i 0.0422 i 0.4411 ; 1.3100e- i 0.1480 ; 9.4000e- ; 0.1490 i 0.0393 ; 8.6000e- 0.0402 : 0.0000 i 118.4104 1 118.4104 ; 3.0800e- i 0.0000 i 118.4875 9 I I I 003 I I 004 I I I 004 • I I I 003 I I '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0648 0.2910 0.4906 2.0200e- 0.1650 1.3200e- 0.1664 0.0442 1.2200e- 0.0455 0.0000 186.4219 186.4219 7.5400e- 0.0000 186.6105 003 003 003 003 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road .1 0.1751 i 1.3747 � 1.7892 i 3.0700e- i ; 0.0679 I 0.0679 i i 0.0671 0.0671 � 0.0000 i 265.2390 i 265.2390 ; 0.0282 i 0.0000 i 265.9429 I i I 003 I I i I I • i i i 1 '� I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 0.1751 1.3747 1.7892 3.0700e- 0.0679 0.0679 0.0671 0.0671 0.0000 265.2390 265.2390 0.0282 0.0000 265.9429 003 Page 1708 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ! 0.0000 9 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 3.5400e- i 0.1350 i 0.0301 1 4.9000e- i 0.0120 ; 1.3000e- ; 0.0121 i 3.4600e- I 1.3000e- 3.5800e- i 0.0000 i 46.5437 1 46.5437 ; 2.5200e- i 0.0000 i 46.6068 9 003 004 004 003 004 003 I 003 1 1 9 . 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.0383 i 0.0267 i 0.2846 ; 8.9000e- i 0.1042 ; 6.4000e- ; 0.1048 i 0.0277 ; 5.9000e- 0.0283 : 0.0000 i 80.1971 ; 80.1971 ; 1.9400e- i 0.0000 i 80.2457 9 I I I 004 I I 004 I I I 004 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0418 0.1617 0.3146 1.3800e- 0.1161 7.7000e- 0.1169 0.0311 7.2000e- 0.0318 0.0000 126.7408 126.7408 4.4600e- 0.0000 126.8524 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road .1 0.1751 i 1.3747 � 1.7892 i 3.0700e- i ; 0.0679 I 0.0679 i i 0.0671 0.0671 � 0.0000 i 265.2387 i 265.2387 ; 0.0282 i 0.0000 i 265.9426 I i I 003 I I i I I • i i i 1 '� I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 0.1751 1.3747 1.7892 3.0700e- 0.0679 0.0679 0.0671 0.0671 0.0000 265.2387 265.2387 0.0282 0.0000 265.9426 003 Page 1709 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 ! 0.0000 9 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J -1- Vendor 9 3.5400e- i 0.1350 i 0.0301 1 4.9000e- i 0.0120 : 1.3000e- : 0.0121 i 3.4600e- : 1.3000e- 3.5800e- i 0.0000 i 46.5437 1 46.5437 : 2.5200e- i 0.0000 i 46.6068 9 003 004 004 003 004 003 I 003 1 1 9 . 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.0383 i 0.0267 i 0.2846 : 8.9000e- i 0.1042 : 6.4000e- : 0.1048 i 0.0277 : 5.9000e- 0.0283 : 0.0000 i 80.1971 : 80.1971 : 1.9400e- i 0.0000 i 80.2457 9 I I I 004 I I 004 I I I 004 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0418 0.1617 0.3146 1.3800e- 0.1161 7.7000e- 0.1169 0.0311 7.2000e- 0.0318 0.0000 126.7408 126.7408 4.4600e- 0.0000 126.8524 003 004 004 003 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i i i i 0.0239 : 0.0000 : 0.0239 i 2.5800e- i 0.0000 : 2.5800e- • 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 ; I I I j •� I I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J I J t Off-Road 9 0.0255 i 0.2967 i 0.1645 : 4.3000e- i : 0.0117 : 0.0117 i : 0.0108 : 0.0108 •• 0.0000 37.5379 : 37.5379 : 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 '� 004 I I I I • I I I '� I I I I 1 I • I I I 1 Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0239 0.0117 0.0356 2.5800e- 0.0108 0.0133 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 004 003 Page 1710 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 9I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •i 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- i 0.0131 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 3.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.5085 1 3.5085 : 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 I 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 i '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i i i 0.0239 : 0.0000 : 0.0239 i 2.5800e- : 0.0000 : 2.5800e- • 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I 003 I 003 ; I I I j •� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J I J t Off-Road 91 0.0255 i 0.2967 i 0.1645 : 4.3000e- i : 0.0117 : 0.0117 i : 0.0108 : 0.0108 •• 0.0000 37.5379 : 37.5379 : 0.0121 i 0.0000 i 37.8414 '� 004 1 1 I I • I I I '� 1 I 1 1 1 I • I I 1 1 Total 0.0255 0.2967 0.1645 4.3000e- 0.0239 0.0117 0.0356 2.5800e- 0.0108 0.0133 0.0000 37.5379 37.5379 0.0121 0.0000 37.8414 004 003 Page 1711 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker .1 1.7200e- i 1.2500e- i 0.0131 : 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 3.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.5085 1 3.5085 : 9.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.5107 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 ' I 005 I 1 '� I I I I I 1 • I I I Total 1.7200e- 1.2500e- 0.0131 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 3.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.5085 3.5085 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.5107 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i i i 6.9600e- i 0.0000 : 6.9600e- : 7.8000e- i 0.0000 : 7.8000e- • 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 •1 I I I I 003 I I 003 I 004 I 004I I ,� I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J I J J . J I J t Off-Road • 0.0104 i 0.1111 i 0.0766 : 1.5000e- i : 5.5400e- : 5.5400e- i : 5.1000e- 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 : 13.4863 : 4.3600e- i 0.0000 1 13.5953 9 I I I 004 1 1 003 1 003 1 I 003 003 • I 1 003 1 1 I • I I I 1 Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 6.9600e- 5.5400e- 0.0125 7.8000e- 5.1000e- 5.8800e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 004 003 003 004 003 003 003 Page 1712 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 4.1200e- i 0.1539 i 0.0262 : 5.5000e- i 0.0124 : 3.9000e- : 0.0128 i 3.4000e- : 3.7000e- 3.7700e- • 0.0000 i 52.7073 1 52.7073 : 2.9300e- i 0.0000 i 52.7805 '9 003 I I I 004 I 1 004 1 1 003 1 004 003 ' I I 003 I 1 '� 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I i ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 1 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 91 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I i �� J 1 J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker .1 8.6000e- i 6.3000e- i 6.5400e- : 2.0000e- i 2.1900e- : 1.0000e- : 2.2100e- i 5.8000e- : 1.0000e- 6.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7542 1 1.7542 : 5.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7554 9 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 '� i i i i i i i I i 005 Total 4.9800e- 0.1546 0.0327 5.7000e- 0.0146 4.0000e- 0.0150 3.9800e- 3.8000e- 4.3700e- 0.0000 54.4616 54.4616 2.9800e- 0.0000 54.5359 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust :i i i i 6.9600e- : 0.0000 : 6.9600e- i 7.8000e- : 0.0000 : 7.8000e- • 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I 003 I I 003 I 004 I 004I I •� I I I I I I • I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road •i 0.0104 i 0.1111 i 0.0766 : 1.5000e- i : 5.5400e- : 5.5400e- i : 5.1000e- 5.1000e- • 0.0000 13.4863 : 13.4863 : 4.3600e- i 0.0000 1 13.5953 9 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 •003 I 1 003 1 1 •1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 • I I 1 Total 0.0104 0.1111 0.0766 1.5000e- 6.9600e- 5.5400e- 0.0125 7.8000e- 5.1000e- 5.8800e- 0.0000 13.4863 13.4863 4.3600e- 0.0000 13.5953 004 003 003 004 003 003 003 Page 1713 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 4.1200e- i 0.1539 i 0.0262 5.5000e- i 0.0124 3.9000e- : 0.0128 i 3.4000e- : 3.7000e- 3.7700e- • 0.0000 i 52.7073 1 52.7073 : 2.9300e- i 0.0000 i 52.7805 9004 I I 004 I I 003 I 004 003 ' I I 003 I 1 003 I I ,� J J J J J J J • 7 J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 1 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 91 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker .1 8.6000e- i 6.3000e- i 6.5400e- 2.0000e- i 2.1900e- 1.0000e- : 2.2100e- i 5.8000e- : 1.0000e- 6.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7542 1 1.7542 : 5.0000e- i 0.0000 i 1.7554 9 004 I 004 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 004 '� i i i i I i i i I i 005 Total 4.9800e- 0.1546 0.0327 5.7000e- 0.0146 4.0000e- 0.0150 3.9800e- 3.8000e- 4.3700e- 0.0000 54.4616 54.4616 2.9800e- 0.0000 54.5359 003 004 004 003 004 003 003 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 4 0.2788 i 2.1123 i 2.9751 : 4.9200e- i : 0.1065 : 0.1065 i : 0.1059 0.1059 •. 0.0000 i 424.0827 : 424.0827 : 0.0371 i 0.0000 i 425.0093 '� I I I 003 I I I I I • I I I '1 I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 0.2788 2.1123 2.9751 4.9200e- 0.1065 0.1065 0.1059 0.1059 0.0000 424.0827 424.0827 0.0371 0.0000 425.0093 003 Page 1714 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I , I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 6.1500e- i 0.2344 i 0.0522 : 8.4000e- i 0.0208 : 2.3000e- : 0.0210 i 6.0000e- : 2.2000e- 6.2200e- i 0.0000 i 80.8390 1 80.8390 : 4.3800e- i 0.0000 i 80.9486 9 003 004 004 003 004 003 I I 003 1 1 9 . 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.0665 i 0.0465 i 0.4942 : 1.5400e- i 0.1809 : 1.1100e- : 0.1820 i 0.0481 : 1.0300e- 0.0491 : 0.0000 i 139.2896 1 139.2896 : 3.3800e- i 0.0000 i 139.3740 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 • I I I 003 I I '� I I I I I I I I • I , I I 1 Total 0.0727 0.2809 0.5464 2.3800e- 0.2017 1.3400e- 0.2031 0.0541 1.2500e- 0.0553 0.0000 220.1287 220.1287 7.7600e- 0.0000 220.3227 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 0.2788 i 2.1123 ; 2.9751 i 4.9200e- i i 0.1065 i 0.1065 ; ; 0.1059 0.1059 •. 0.0000 i 424.0822 i 424.0822 ; 0.0371 i 0.0000 i 425.0088 '1 I I I 003 I I I I I • I I '1 I I I I I I I I • I 1 I 1 Total 0.2788 2.1123 2.9751 4.9200e- 0.1065 0.1065 0.1059 0.1059 0.0000 424.0822 424.0822 0.0371 0.0000 425.0088 003 Page 1715 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 6.1500e- i 0.2344 i 0.0522 : 8.4000e- i 0.0208 : 2.3000e- : 0.0210 i 6.0000e- : 2.2000e- 6.2200e- i 0.0000 i 80.8390 1 80.8390 : 4.3800e- i 0.0000 i 80.9486 9 003 004 004 003 004 003 I 003 1 1 9 . 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.0665 i 0.0465 i 0.4942 : 1.5400e- i 0.1809 : 1.1100e- : 0.1820 i 0.0481 : 1.0300e- 0.0491 : 0.0000 i 139.2896 1 139.2896 : 3.3800e- i 0.0000 i 139.3740 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 • I I I 003 I I '� I I I I I I I I • I , I I 1 Total 0.0727 0.2809 0.5464 2.3800e- 0.2017 1.3400e- 0.2031 0.0541 1.2500e- 0.0553 0.0000 220.1287 220.1287 7.7600e- 0.0000 220.3227 003 003 003 003 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 0.1035 i 0.7813 i 1.1713 : 1.9400e- i : 0.0363 1 0.0363 i : 0.0361 : 0.0361 •. 0.0000 i 167.0589 : 167.0589 : 0.0141 i 0.0000 i 167.4110 '� I I I 003 I I I I I • I I '� I I I I 1 1 I I • I 1 I i Total 0.1035 0.7813 1.1713 1.9400e- 0.0363 0.0363 0.0361 0.0361 0.0000 167.0589 167.0589 0.0141 0.0000 167.4110 003 Page 1716 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 9I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •i 2.3900e- i 0.0928 i 0.0198 : 3.3000e- i 8.2000e- 9.0000e- : 8.2900e- i 2.3700e- : 9.0000e- 2.4500e- i 0.0000 i 31.8102 : 31.8102 : 1.7300e- i 0.0000 i 31.8533 9 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 I 003 1 1 9 . 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.0247 i 0.0166 i 0.1812 : 5.9000e- i 0.0713 4.3000e- : 0.0717 i 0.0189 : 4.0000e- 0.0193 : 0.0000 i 53.0917 1 53.0917 : 1.2100e- i 0.0000 i 53.1221 9 I I I 004 I I 004 I I I 004 • I I I 003 I I '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0271 0.1094 0.2010 9.2000e- 0.0795 5.2000e- 0.0800 0.0213 4.9000e- 0.0218 0.0000 84.9019 84.9019 2.9400e- 0.0000 84.9754 004 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 0.1035 i 0.7813 i 1.1713 i 1.9400e- i : 0.0363 1 0.0363 : i 0.0361 : 0.0361 •. 0.0000 i 167.0587 1 167.0587 1 0.0141 i 0.0000 i 167.4108 '� I I I 003 I I I I I • I I I I I '� I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I Total 0.1035 0.7813 1.1713 1.9400e- 0.0363 0.0363 0.0361 0.0361 0.0000 167.0587 167.0587 0.0141 0.0000 167.4108 003 Page 1717 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •i 2.3900e- i 0.0928 i 0.0198 : 3.3000e- i 8.2000e- 9.0000e- : 8.2900e- i 2.3700e- : 9.0000e- 2.4500e- i 0.0000 i 31.8102 : 31.8102 : 1.7300e- i 0.0000 i 31.8533 9 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 I 003 1 1 9 . 1 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.0247 i 0.0166 i 0.1812 : 5.9000e- i 0.0713 4.3000e- : 0.0717 i 0.0189 : 4.0000e- 0.0193 : 0.0000 i 53.0917 1 53.0917 : 1.2100e- i 0.0000 i 53.1221 9 I I I 004 I I 004 I I I 004 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.0271 0.1094 0.2010 9.2000e- 0.0795 5.2000e- 0.0800 0.0213 4.9000e- 0.0218 0.0000 84.9019 84.9019 2.9400e- 0.0000 84.9754 004 004 004 003 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 9.8800e- i 0.0953 i 0.1463 : 2.3000e- i : 4.6900e- : 4.6900e- i : 4.3100e- 4.3100e- • 0.0000 i 20.0265 : 20.0265 : 6.4800e- i 0.0000 i 20.1885 9003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 •003 ' I I 003 I 1 ;� I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J I J J m J J J t Paving 9 2.3600e- i i i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 003 I i I i I i i i • I i I i 9I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1885 004 003 003 003 003 003 Page 1718 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 1 91 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •i 7.4000e- i 0.0286 i 6.0900e- 1.0000e- i 2.5200e- ; 3.0000e- ; 2.5500e- i 7.3000e- ; 3.0000e- 7.5000e- i 0.0000 i 9.7878 ; 9.7878 ; 5.3000e- i 0.0000 i 9.8010 '� 004 003 004 003 005 003 004 005 004 I 004 1 1 '� I 1 . 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- i 0.0112 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- ; 3.0000e- ; 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- ; 2.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.2672 ; 3.2672 ; 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 1 005 1 003 1 003 1 005 003 I 005 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 9.8800e- i 0.0953 i 0.1463 ; 2.3000e- i ; 4.6900e- i 4.6900e- i ; 4.3100e- : 4.3100e- • 0.0000 i 20.0265 i 20.0265 ; 6.4800e- i 0.0000 1 20.1884 9003 I I 1 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 .003 ' I I 003 I 1 ; I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 J 'l 1 J J J J J J J J J J 1.I Paving 9 2.3600e- i i i I i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 003 I i I i I i i i • i i I i 9I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1884 004 003 003 003 003 003 Page 1719 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 1 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 91 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor .1 7.4000e- i 0.0286 i 6.0900e- 1.0000e- i 2.5200e- : 3.0000e- : 2.5500e- i 7.3000e- : 3.0000e- 7.5000e- i 0.0000 i 9.7878 1 9.7878 : 5.3000e- i 0.0000 i 9.8010 '� 004 003 004 003 005 003 004 005 004 I 004 1 1 '� I 1 . 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker .1 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- i 0.0112 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 2.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 : 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 1 005 1 003 1 003 1 005 003 ' I 005 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating :i 0.8827 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9I I I 1 1 I I • I I I 1 •� I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 J J J J J I J J . J I J t Off-Road • 7.2300e- i 0.0488 i 0.0724 : 1.2000e- i : 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- i : 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 : 10.2130 : 5.8000e- i 0.0000 1 10.2274 •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 004 i '1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 004 003 003 003 003 004 Page 1720 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 9I I I I I I . I I I 1 ,�1 J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- i 0.0112 : 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 2.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 : 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 ' I 005 I 1 '� I I I I I 1 • I I I Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 4 0.8827 i i 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •. 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 91 I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I I I 1 I J J J J J I J J . J I J t Off-Road •i 7.2300e- i 0.0488 i 0.0724 i 1.2000e- i i 2.4400e- i 2.4400e- : i 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 1 10.2130 : 5.8000e- i 0.0000 1 10.2274 •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 004 i '1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 004 003 003 003 003 004 Page 1721 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J 1 J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- i 0.0112 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 2.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 : 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 I 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 i '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road •i 9.8800e- i 0.0953 i 0.1463 : 2.3000e- i : 4.6900e- : 4.6900e- i : 4.3100e- 4.3100e- • 0.0000 i 20.0265 : 20.0265 : 6.4800e- i 0.0000 i 20.1885 9003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 .003 ' I I 003 I 1 ; I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J I J J m J J J t Paving 9 2.3600e- i i i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 003 I i I i I i i i • I i I i 9I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1885 004 003 003 003 003 003 Page 1722 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 • 1 91 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •i 7.4000e- i 0.0286 i 6.0900e- 1.0000e- i 2.5200e- : 3.0000e- : 2.5500e- i 7.3000e- : 3.0000e- 7.5000e- i 0.0000 i 9.7878 1 9.7878 : 5.3000e- i 0.0000 i 9.8010 '� 004 003 004 003 005 003 004 005 004 I 004 1 1 '� I 1 . 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- i 0.0112 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 2.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 : 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 1 005 1 003 1 003 1 005 003 I 005 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9 9.8800e- i 0.0953 i 0.1463 ; 2.3000e- i ; 4.6900e- i 4.6900e- i ; 4.3100e- : 4.3100e- • 0.0000 i 20.0265 i 20.0265 ; 6.4800e- i 0.0000 i 20.1884 9003 I I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I I 003 .003 ' I I 003 I 1 ; I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 J 'l 1 J J J J J J J J J J 1.I I Paving 9 2.3600e- i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 003 I i I i I i i i • i i I i 9I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 0.0122 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.3100e- 0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e- 0.0000 20.1884 004 003 003 003 003 003 Page 1723 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 1 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 91 I I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I ,� J J J J J J 7 J J J t Vendor .1 7.4000e- i 0.0286 i 6.0900e- 1.0000e- i 2.5200e- : 3.0000e- : 2.5500e- i 7.3000e- : 3.0000e- 7.5000e- i 0.0000 i 9.7878 1 9.7878 : 5.3000e- i 0.0000 i 9.8010 '� 004 003 004 003 005 003 004 005 004 I 004 1 1 '� I 1 . 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker .1 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- i 0.0112 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 2.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 : 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 1 005 1 003 1 003 1 005 003 I 005 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 2.2600e- 0.0296 0.0172 1.4000e- 6.9100e- 6.0000e- 6.9600e- 1.8900e- 5.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 13.0549 13.0549 6.0000e- 0.0000 13.0701 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating :i 0.8827 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9I I I 1 1 I I • I I I 1 •� I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 J J J J J I J J . J I J t Off-Road • 7.2300e- i 0.0488 i 0.0724 : 1.2000e- i : 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- i : 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 : 10.2130 : 5.8000e- i 0.0000 1 10.2274 •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 004 i '1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 004 003 003 003 003 004 Page 1724 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker .1 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- i 0.0112 : 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- : 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 2.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 : 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 I 003 I I 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 003 I 005 003 ' I I 005 I 1 '� I I I I I 1 • I I I Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit.Coating 9 0.8827 i i 1 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I 1 •� I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 J J J J J I J J . J I J t Off-Road • 7.2300e- i 0.0488 i 0.0724 : 1.2000e- i : 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- i : 2.4400e- : 2.4400e- • 0.0000 10.2130 : 10.2130 : 5.8000e- i 0.0000 1 10.2274 •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 . 004 i '1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 0.8899 0.0488 0.0724 1.2000e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 2.4400e- 0.0000 10.2130 10.2130 5.8000e- 0.0000 10.2274 004 003 003 003 003 004 Page 1725 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 9 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 9 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J 1 J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 9 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 9 I I I . I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •i 1.5200e- i 1.0200e- i 0.0112 4.0000e- i 4.3900e- 3.0000e- : 4.4100e- i 1.1600e- : 2.0000e- 1.1900e- i 0.0000 i 3.2672 1 3.2672 : 7.0000e- i 0.0000 i 3.2691 9 003 I 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 i '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.5200e- 1.0200e- 0.0112 4.0000e- 4.3900e- 3.0000e- 4.4100e- 1.1600e- 2.0000e- 1.1900e- 0.0000 3.2672 3.2672 7.0000e- 0.0000 3.2691 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Page 1726 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 42 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2 5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 4 0.4455 i 3.0770 : 6.0309 : 0.0274 i 2.2695 i 0.0166 i 2.2862 i 0.6082 i 0.0155 0.6237 : 0.0000 i 2,543.694 i 2,543.694: 0.1116 i 0.0000 i 2,546.483 '� I I I I I I I I I 3 3 I I 4 '� I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. } 1. 1. r e } 1. r Unmitigated • 0.4455 • 3.0770 • 6.0309 • 0.0274 • 2.2695 • 0.0166 • 2.2862 • 0.6082 • 0.0155 • 0.6237 • 0.0000 2,543.694•2,543.694• 0.1116 • 0.0000 •2,546.483 3 3 4 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 2 1,419.32 ; 1,419.32 1419.32 5,631,294 5,631,294 City Park ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse + 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y Parking Lot ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall ; 83.03 ; 83.03 83.03 • 329,439 • 329,439 Total I 1,502.35 I 1,502.35 1,502.35 I 5,960,733 I 5,960,733 4.3 Trip Type Information Page 1727 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 43 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.90 10.90 1 10.90 40.00 20.00 40.00 100 0 0 City Park 16.60 I 8.40 T 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 19.00 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse 14.70 5.90 ? 8.70 ,i 40.00 I 20.00 • 40.00 • 100 • 0 r 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 I 8.40 T 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 ▪ 8.40 ? 6.90 i 33.00 48.00 T 19.00 • 77 • 19 r 4 Parking Lot 16.60 I 8.40 T 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 16.60 ▪ 8.40 ? 6.90 i 33.00 48.00 T 19.00 • 52 • 39 r 9 4 Strip Mall 10.90 • 10.90 10.90 • 16.60 • 64.40 ? 19.00 • 100 • 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800 i 0.111169 i 0.014289 i 0.004794 i 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365 i 0.001491: 0.005725 i 0.000799: 0.000830 i- ---i i i i i i i i i t + City Park • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799' 0.000830 i- ---i i i i t i i i i t + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799' 0.000830 i- ---t t t i t i i t i t + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 i- ---t t t t t t i t i t + General Office Building • 0.558745v 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 i- ---i i i t t i i t i t + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799' 0.000830 i- ---i i i i i i i i i t + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 vI I I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Page 1728 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I Electricity •1 I 1 1 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• 0.0000 1 575.0523 1 575.0523 1 0.0265 1 5.4800e- i 577.3461 Mitigated .: I I I I I I I I . I I I I 003 1 .1 1 I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 J J J J J J J J •• J J J I I 1 I •1 I I I 1 I I Electricity 9 I 1 1 1 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 575.0523 1 575.0523 1 0.0265 1 5.4800e- : 577.3461 Unmitigated .: I I I I I I I I . I I I 003 1 .1 1 I I I I I I I . I I I 1 J •J J J J J J J •• J J J I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I NaturalGas 9 0.0209 1 0.1788 1 0.0766 1 1.1400e- 1 1 0.0145 1 0.0145 1 1 0.0145 0.0145 : 0.0000 1 206.9847 1 206.9847 1 3.9700e- 1 3.7900e- : 208.2147 Mitigated ;i I I I 003 I I I I I • I I I 003 I 003 1 1 I I I I I I I ' 1 I 1 1 I. } } } } } } } } r } } } r NaturalGas • 0.0209 • 0.1788 • 0.0766 • 1.1400e- • • 0.0145 • 0.0145 • • 0.0145 • 0.0145 • 0.0000 • 206.9847 • 206.9847 • 3.9700e- • 3.7900e- • 208.2147 Unmitigated 003 003 003 Page 1729 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 45 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I Apartments Mid 13.83167e•i 0.0207 1 0.1766 1 0.0751 1 1.1300e- 1 1 0.0143 1 0.0143 1 1 0.0143 0.0143 • 0.0000 1 204.4723 1 204.4723 1 3.9200e- 1 3.7500e- I 205.6874 Rise I +006 ;: 003 I I I I i I I 003 I 003 i i 41 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I City Park 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 'I I 1 I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 1 'I I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 i 41 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I Condo/Townhous I 22663.5 •1 1.2000e- 1 1.0400e- 1 4.4000e- 1 1.0000e- 1 1 8.0000e- 1 8.0000e- 1 1 8.0000e- 8.0000e- I 0.0000 1 1.2094 1 1.2094 1 2.0000e- 1 2.0000e- i 1.2166 e I '1 004 I 003 1 004 I 005 I I 005 I 005 I I 005 005 1 1 'I I I I I I I I I • I I I 005 I 005 41 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I Enclosed Parking 1 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 with Elevator 1 '1 I 1 I I I I 1 I • I 1 I I 1 1 'I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 , I 1 1 I 1 ?I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I General Office I 17003 .1 9.0000e- 1 8.3000e- 1 7.0000e- 1 1.0000e- 1 1 6.0000e- 1 6.0000e- 1 1 6.0000e- 6.0000e- I 0.0000 1 0.9073 1 0.9073 1 2.0000e- 1 2.0000e- : 0.9127 Building 1 ;: 005 1 004 : 004 1 005 1 I 005 I 005 I 1 005 005 • i I I 005 1 005 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 , I I 1 1 i 9 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J I I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 I : I I Parking Lot 1 0 •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 'I I 1 1 I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 1 'I I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 i 41 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 Swimming Pool I '1 I 1 I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 1 'I I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 41 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I Strip Mall i 7412.58 .1 4.0000e- 1 3.6000e- 1 3.1000e- 1 0.0000 1 1 3.0000e- 1 3.0000e- 1 3.0000e- 3.0000e- I 0.0000 1 0.3956 1 0.3956 1 1.0000e- 1 1.0000e- 1 0.3979 1 :I 005 I 004 I 004 I I 005 I 005 I I 005 005 • 1 I I 005 I 005 1 1 'I I 1 I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1500e- 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 206.9846 206.9846 3.9700e- 3.8000e- 208.2147 003 003 003 Page 1730 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 46 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr I T MT/yr Apartments Mid i 3.83167e•1 0.0207 I 0.1766 I 0.0751 1� 1.1300e- I I I 0.0143 I 0.0143 I 0.0143 0.0143 : 0.0000 I 204.4723 I 204.4723 I 3.9200e- I 3.7500e- 1 205.6874 Rise i +006 'I I 003 I 1 I . 1 1 I 003 I 003 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I , 1 1 1 1 41 J J J J J J J J J J J T City Park i 0 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I : I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ; I I I I I I I I , I I I I I 41 J J J J J J J J v I J J J T Condo/Townhous i 22663.5 1 1.2000e- 11.0400e- I 4.4000e- I 1.0000e- I I 8.0000e- 18.0000e- I I 8.0000e- ; 8.0000e- a 0.0000 i 1.2094 I 1.2094 1 2.0000e- 12.0000e- I 1.2166 e 1 ; 004 I 003 1 004 1 005 I I 005 I 005 I I 005 005 . I I I 005 I 005 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I , I 1 I I 41 J J J J J J J J I J J J T Enclosed Parking i 0 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 with Elevator 1 ; 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I 1 1 ; I I I I I I I I I I I I r 71 J J J J J J J J I J J J T General Office i 17003 9.0000e- 18.3000e- I 7.0000e- I 1.0000e- I I 6.0000e- 16.0000e- I I 6.0000e- ; 6.0000e- i 0.0000 i 0.9073 I 0.9073 1 2.0000e- I 2.0000e- 1 0.9127 Building 1 I 005 I 004 1 004 I 005 I I 005 I 005 I I 005 005 . 1 I 005 I 005 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I , 1 I I 41 J J J J J J J J I J J J T Parking Lot i 0 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I : I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I • , I 1 I I I 41 J J J J J J J J . I J J J 1 ; T Recreational i 0 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 Swimming Pool 1 I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I , I I I 41 J J J J J J J J I J J J T Strip Mall i 7412.58 1 4.0000e- I 3.6000e- I 3.1000e- I 0.0000 I I 3.0000e- I 3.0000e- I I 3.0000e- ; 3.0000e- 1 0.0000 i 0.3956 I 0.3956 1 1.0000e- 11.0000e- 1 0.3979 'I 005 I 004 1 004 I 1 I 005 I 005 I I 005 005 . I 1 I 005 I 005 I j I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I Total 0.0209 0.1788 0.0766 1.1500e- 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0144 0.0000 206.9846 206.9846 3.9700e- 3.8000e- 208.2147 003 003 003 Page 1731 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 47 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid i 1.18304e•1 338.0684 i 0.0156 : 3.2200e- : 339.4169 Rise i +006 :: I 003 -9 J J City Park i 0 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 -9 J J -r Condo/Townhous i 5642.06 •1 1.6123 i 7.0000e- : 2.0000e- i 1.6187 e I :1 005 I 005 it J J Enclosed Parking : 703200 .1 200.9487 i 9.2500e- I 1.9100e- : 201.7502 with Elevator I :1 1 003 : 003 41 J J General Office I 46648 .1 13.3303 i 6.1000e- : 1.3000e- : 13.3835 Building i :1 : 004 : 004 i it J J Parking Lot : 31640 •1 9.0416 i 4.2000e- 19.0000e- : 9.0776 :1 : 004 : 005 i it J J Recreational i 0 .1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 Swimming Pool I •1 41 J J Strip Mall : 42171.6 .1 12.0511 i 5.5000e- I 1.1000e- 1 12.0992 :1 004 1 004 Total 575.0523 0.0265 5.4800e- 577.3461 003 Page 1732 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 48 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Apartments Mid i 1.18304e•1 338.0684 i 0.0156 : 3.2200e- : 339.4169 Rise i +006 :: I 003 -9 J J City Park i 0 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 -9 J J -r Condo/Townhous i 5642.06 •1 1.6123 i 7.0000e- : 2.0000e- i 1.6187 e I :1 005 I 005 it J J Enclosed Parking : 703200 .1 200.9487 i 9.2500e- I 1.9100e- : 201.7502 with Elevator I :1 1 003 : 003 41 J J General Office I 46648 .1 13.3303 i 6.1000e- I 1.3000e- : 13.3835 Building i :1 : 004 : 004 i it J J Parking Lot : 31640 •1 9.0416 i 4.2000e- 19.0000e- : 9.0776 :1 : 004 : 005 i it J J Recreational i 0 .1 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 Swimming Pool I •: 41 J J Strip Mall : 42171.6 .1 12.0511 i 5.5000e- : 1.1000e- 1 12.0992 :1 004 1 004 Total 575.0523 0.0265 5.4800e- 577.3461 003 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Page 1733 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 49 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 1.1609 � 0.0849 i 2.7100 � 4.9000e- : i 0.0192 i 0.0192 i i 0.0192 � 0.0192 • 0.0000 i 66.8289 : 66.8289 i 5.4300e- : 1.1400e- i 67.3059 •� 004 ; 003 003 'I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 :� } } } } } } } } r } } } Unmitigated • 1.1609 • 0.0849 • 2.7100 • 4.9000e- . • 0.0192 • 0.0192 • 0.0192 • 0.0192 • 0.0000 • 66.8289 • 66.8289 • 5.4300e- • 1.1400e- • 67.3059 004 003 003 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0883 i 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating :� ,i I I I I I I 1 I I I I • J .1 J Consumer 9 0.9851 i i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 •• 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 Products �� I I I I I I I I , I I '� 1 I I I I I I I i , I I 1 'I I Hearth 9 6.3100e- i 0.0539 : 0.0229 i 3.4000e- i : 4.3600e- i 4.3600e- : i 4.3600e- 4.3600e- • 0.0000 62.4357 : 62.4357 i 1.2000e- : 1.1400e- : 62.8067 •� 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 i 'I I I I I I I I I I I I Landscaping 9 0.0812 i 0.0309 : 2.6871 i 1.4000e- i : 0.0149 i 0.0149 : i 0.0149 0.0149 • 0.0000 4.3933 1 4.3933 i 4.2400e- 1 0.0000 I 4.4992 1 ,� I I I 004 I I I I I I I 003 Total 1.1609 0.0849 2.7100 4.8000e- 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 66.8289 66.8289 5.4400e- 1.1400e- 67.3059 004 003 003 Page 1734 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 50 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr 1 1 1 1 Architectural •i 0.0883 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 .. 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating :: I I I I I I I I . I I I I f J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Consumer .1 0.9851 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 Products :1 I I I I I I . I I I I I '� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Hearth .1 6.3100e- i 0.0539 : 0.0229 i 3.4000e- i : 4.3600e- i 4.3600e- : i 4.3600e- 4.3600e- I 0.0000 i 62.4357 : 62.4357 i 1.2000e- : 1.1400e- i 62.8067 9 003 004 003 003 003 003 9 1 i i i i i i i i 003 003 f J J J J J J J J 4 I J J J Landscaping .1 0.0812 i 0.0309 : 2.6871 i 1.4000e- i : 0.0149 i 0.0149 : i 0.0149 0.0149 0.0000 i 4.3933 : 4.3933 i 4.2400e- : 0.0000 � 4.4992 '� II II I 004 I II I II II • I II I 003 i Total 1.1609 0.0849 2.7100 4.8000e- 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 66.8289 66.8289 5.4400e- 1.1400e- 67.3059 004 003 003 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Page 1735 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 51 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •i 111.2350 i 0.6110 i 0.0153 i 131.0754 Unmitigated •• 111.2350 : 0.6110 • 0.0153 : 131.0754 Page 1736 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 52 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal 1 MT/yr • Apartments Mid I 16.94/ •i 102.3128 1 0.5565 : 0.0140 i 120.3833 Rise I 10.6796 :: I I 91 1 1 J J City Park I 0/ •1 1.2483 1 6.0000e- : 1.0000e- I 1.2533 0.393189:: I 005 I 005 i I- 41J J Condo/Townhous 13.065154/•1 0.3935 1 2.1400e- 15.0000e- I 0.4630 e 0.0410754:1 I 003 I 005 I- 4l J J Enclosed Parking I 0/0 •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 with Elevator I •1 i J J General Office 11.35078/ •1 5.4547 1 0.0443 1 1.0900e- I 6.8848 Building I 0 :: : 003 I- 4 J J Parking Lot I 0/0 •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I- 4l J J Recreational I 0/ •i 0.3453 1 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 I 0.3466 Swimming Pool i 0.108747:i I 005 I i Strip Mall 13.247402/•i 1.4805 1 8.1300e- 1 2.0000e- T 1.7443 I 0.151634:: I 003 I 004 Total il 111.2350 0.6111 0.0153 131.0754 Page 1737 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 53 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal 1 MT/yr • Apartments Mid I 16.94/ •i 102.3128 1 0.5565 : 0.0140 i 120.3833 Rise I 10.6796 :: I I 91 1 1 J City Park I 0/ •i 1.2483 1 6.0000e- : 1.0000e- I 1.2533 0.393189:: I 005 I 005 i I- 41J J Condo/Townhous 13.065154/•i 0.3935 1 2.1400e- I 5.0000e- I 0.4630 e �0.0410754;i 003 005 I- 4l Enclosed Parking I 0/0 •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 with Elevator I •1 i J J General Office 11.35078/ •i 5.4547 1 0.0443 1 1.0900e- I 6.8848 Building I 0 :: I : 003 i t 4 Parking Lot I 0/0 •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 I- 4l Recreational I 0/ •i 0.3453 1 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 I 0.3466 Swimming Pool i 0.108747;i I 005 I i Strip Mall ID.247402/•i 1.4805 1 8.1300e- 12.0000e- I 1.7443 I 0.151634:: I 003 I 004 Total 11 111.2350 0.6111 0.0153 131.0754 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Page 1738 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 54 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •i 118.5467 i 7.0059 0.0000 i 293.6945 Unmitigated •• 118.5467 : 7.0059 • 0.0000 : 293.6945 Page 1739 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 55 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons 1 MT/yr • Apartments Mid : 555.83 •i 112.8285 1 6.6680 : 0.0000 1279.5278 Rise I •:i .1 i 1 J J City Park : 0.03 •i 6.0900e- 1 3.6000e- 1 0.0000 : 0.0151 ;i 003 I 004 J J Condo/Townhous i 0.46 •i 0.0934 1 5.5200e- 1 0.0000 i 0.2313 e I I 003 J J Enclosed Parking : 0 •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 with Elevator I •: J General Office i 7.07 •i 1.4352 1 0.0848 : 0.0000 i 3.5555 Building i •: t J J Parking Lot : 0 •: 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 J J Recreational i 17.1 •i 3.4712 1 0.2051 1 0.0000 i 8.5996 Swimming Pool I •: J Strip Mall i 3.51 9i 0.7125 1 0.0421 1 0.0000 i 1.7652 Total 118.5467 7.0059 0.0000 293.6945 Page 1740 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 56 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons 1 MT/yr • Apartments Mid : 555.83 •i 112.8285 1 6.6680 : 0.0000 1279.5278 Rise i •: 1 t J J City Park : 0.03 •i 6.0900e- 1 3.6000e- 1 0.0000 : 0.0151 .: 003 I 004 J J Condo/Townhous i 0.46 •i 0.0934 1 5.5200e- 1 0.0000 i 0.2313 e I I 003 J J Enclosed Parking : 0 •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 with Elevator I •: J J General Office i 7.07 •i 1.4352 1 0.0848 : 0.0000 i 3.5555 Building i •: t J J Parking Lot : 0 •: 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 J J Recreational i 17.1 -el3.4712 1 0.2051 1 0.0000 i 8.5996 Swimming Pool I •: 1 1 J J i .1Strip Mall i 3.51 -el 0.7125 1 0.0421 : 0.0000 i 1.7652 i il 1 Total 118.5467 7.0059 0.0000 293.6945 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number I Hours/Day Days/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Page 1741 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 57 of 57 Date: 9/30/2021 10:28 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Annual IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation Page 1742 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric I Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 7.60 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 4,900.00 1 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 300.00 + Space ; 0.00 120,000.00 + 0 Parking Lot 226.00 + Space ; 1.80 90,400.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,374.80 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.07 3,000.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 259,000.00 + 741 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 4 4- f I. Strip Mall 3.34 1000sgft 0.00 3,339.00 0 • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor" Land Use- See SWAPE comments on "Failure to Model Required Amount of Parking" and "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Us Enclosed Parking= 57% of total, Parking Lot=43% of total parking. Page 1743 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Construction Phase- Consistent with IS/MND's model Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Architectural Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Woodstoves-Woodstoves: consistent with IS/MND's model. Fireplaces: See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values" Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Energy Use - Water And Wastewater- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Solid Waste-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Solid Waste Generation Rates" Total adds up to 584 tons/year Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Page 1744 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberGas 220.15 259.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberGas 0.85 1.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.90 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.10 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.95 0.00 . 4 I" tblFireplaces NumberWood 0.05 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 50.00 T 60.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 50.00 T 45.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 T 24.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 T 12.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 T 21,180.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 T 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 7,600.00 T 4,900.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,000.00 T 1,570.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,340.00 T 3,339.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.17 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.70 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.03 T 1.80 tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.82 T 3.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.08 T 0.00 I- 4 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount T 1.00 4.00 1 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 Page 1745 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 7 1.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 2.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 2.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 4.00 1.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 4.00 1.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblProjectCharacteristics CO2lntensityFactor i 702.44 630 r 4 • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate i 119.14 555.83 v r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber i 2,648.00 2,880.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber i 1,324.00 1,440.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber i 0.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber i 66.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 66.00 40.00 Page 1746 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer tblTripsAndVMT • VendorTripNumber • 0.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 57.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 286.00 200.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 286.00 200.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 57.00 40.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips CC_TL i 8.40 10.90 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips CNWTL i 6.90 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips CWTL i 16.60 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips DVTP i 11.00 0.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips DVTP i 11.00 0.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips DV_TP i 40.00 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL i 8.70 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP i 40.60 40.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP i 40.60 40.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HS_TL i 5.90 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP i 19.20 20.00 r . tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP i 19.20 20.00 r . tblVehicleTrips HWTL i 14.70 10.90 r • tblVehicleTrips HWTTP i 40.20 40.00 tblVehicleTrips HWTTP 40.20 • 40.00 Page 1747 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblVehicleTrips PBTP 3.00 0.00 • • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP } 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP i 15.00 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP } 86.00 100.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP } 86.00 100.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP } 45.00 100.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 6.39 5.48 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 22.75 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 5.67 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR i 2.46 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 9.10 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 42.04 24.86 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 5.86 5.48 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 16.74 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 4.84 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR i 1.05 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 13.60 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 20.43 24.86 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 6.65 5.48 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 1.89 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 5.81 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 11.03 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 33.82 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 44.32 24.86 r • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 16,874,892.64 16,940,046.66 r • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 177,429.43 0.00 tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 10,638,519.27 • 10,679,594.63 • Page 1748 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 827,895.26 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic i 12.95 7 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic i 0.05 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic i 12.95 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic i 0.05 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear i 25.00 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear i 25.00 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass i 999.60 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary Page 1749 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day 2022 •i 4.9826 i 82.5898 ; 46.0429 i 0.2561 ; 8.2717 1.6581 i 9.5368 1.8114 i 1.6363 2.9810 • 0.0000 i 26,896.46;26,896.46 i 2.2163 ; 0.0000 I 26,951.87 '1 I I I I I I I I • 1 •I 1 I I i i . i 57 i 57 i I 40 ;I J J J J J J J J . I J J J 2023 •1 4.6469 i 32.2831 ; 45.2356 i 0.0955 ; 2.4917 1.4464 i 3.9381 0.6666 i 1.4268 2.0935 : 0.0000 i 9,283.061 ;9,283.061 i 0.7593 ; 0.0000 I 9,302.045 9 I I I 1 1 I 1 I • 8 I 8 I I 1 2 9 I I I 1 1 I I I • I I I 1 ;1 J J J J J J J J . I J J J 2024 •1 89.1573 i 27.3471 ; 43.1163 i 0.0898 ; 2.4917 1.1320 i 3.6237 0.6666 i 1.1243 1.7909 • 0.0000 i 8,726.729;8,726.729 i 0.7790 ; 0.0000 I 8,741.208 '1 I I I I I I I I ; I I I 7 I 7 I I 1 4 '1 I 1 I 1 I I I I • I I Maximum 89.1573 82.5898 46.0429 0.2561 8.2717 1.6581 9.5368 1.8114 1.6363 2.9810 0.0000 26,896.46 26,896.46 2.2163 0.0000 26,951.87 11 57 57 40 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day 2022 9 4.9826 i 82.5898 i 46.0429 i 0.2561 8.2717 1.6581 i 9.5368 i 1.8114 i 1.6363 2.9810 0.0000 i 26,896.46 i 26,896.46 i 2.2163 i 0.0000 i 26,951.87 •1 I I I I I I I I ■ I 57 : 57 I 1 40 ;� I I I I I I I I I , I I J J J J J J J J I J J J1. 2023 9 4.6469 i 32.2831 ; 45.2356 i 0.0955 1 2.4917 ; 1.4464 i 3.9381 ; 0.6666 i 1.4268 2.0935 • I 0.0000 9,283.061 ;9,283.061 i 0.7593 ; 0.0000 19,302.045 '1 I I I I I I I I • 8 I 8 I i 2 '� I I I I I I I I , I I •I J J J J J J J J i J J J1. 2024 9 89.1573 i 27.3471 ; 43.1163 i 0.0898 1 2.4917 ; 1.1320 i 3.6237 ; 0.6666 i 1.1243 1.7909 : 0.0000 18,726.729;8,726.729 i 0.7790 ; 0.0000 18,741.208 '1 1 I I I I I I • 7 7 I I 1 4 • I Maximum 89.1573 82.5898 46.0429 0.2561 8.2717 1.6581 9.5368 1.8114 1.6363 2.9810 0.0000 26,896.46 26,896.46 2.2163 0.0000 26,951.87 57 57 40 Page 1750 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Page 1751 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 7.0358 i 4.5605 1 23.3317 i 0.0287 1 : 0.4677 0.4677 : i 0.4677 0.4677 • 0.0000 i 5,544.624: 5,544.624 i 0.1429 1 0.1009 1 5,578.277 '1I I I i I I I ; 2 I 2 I 1 1 1 'I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I ■ I I 1 1 ;I J J J J J J J J . I J J J Energy •1 0.1146 i 0.9797 : 0.4196 i 6.2500e- 1 1 0.0792 i 0.0792 : i 0.0792 0.0792 • i 1,250.200: 1,250.200 i 0.0240 : 0.0229 I 1,257.629 '1 I I I 003 I I I I . 1 1 1 1 1 4 9 I I I I 1 ■ 1 1 ;� J J J J J J J J J J J Mobile .1 2.8630 i 16.4952 : 37.0284 i 0.1600 1 12.7073 1 0.0913 i 12.7986 : 3.3998 i 0.0851 3.4849 • i 16,342.15: 16,342.15 i 0.6809 1 116,359.17 .1 ; 1 46 : 46 1 I 1 74 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ I Total 10.0134 22.0354 60.7797 0.1949 12.7073 0.6382 13.3455 3.3998 0.6320 4.0318 0.0000 23,136.97 23,136.97 0.8478 0.1239 23,195.08 89 89 40 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day 1 I Area •i 7.0358 i 4.5605 1 23.3317 i 0.0287 0.4677 i 0.4677 i 0.4677 0.4677 • 0.0000 i 5,544.624 5,544.624 i 0.1429 0.1009 i 5,578.277 •1 I I I I I I I I ■ : 2 1 2 I I 1 1 ;� I I I I I I I I , I I J J J J J J J J J J J Energy �i 0.1146 i 0.9797 0.4196 i 6.2500e- 0.0792 i 0.0792 i 0.0792 0.0792 • 1,250.200 1,250.200 i 0.0240 0.0229 i 1,257.629 •1 I I I 003 I I I I I ■ 1 I 1 I I I 4 •� I I I I I I I I I I I J J J J J J J J v J J J Mobile �1 2.8630 i 16.4952 37.0284 i 0.1600 12.7073 0.0913 i 12.7986 3.3998 i 0.0851 3.4849 • I 16,342.15 16,342.15 i 0.6809 i 16,359.17 I I I I I I I I ■ 46 I 46 I i 74 '� I I I I I I I I . I I I Total 10.0134 22.0354 60.7797 0.1949 12.7073 0.6382 13.3455 3.3998 0.6320 4.0318 0.0000 23,136.97 23,136.97 0.8478 0.1239 23,195.08 89 89 40 Page 1752 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 -Demolition :Demolition 13/5/2022 14/1/2022 1 5: 20: i + I , 1 1 ✓ i -I 2 -Site Preparation :Grading !4/30/2022 :5/27/2022 1 5,� 2- 07 i r i , , , 3 -Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Site Preparation !4/2/2022 :4/15/2022 � 51 1- 01 i + ✓ i , I , 1 1 , 4 -Construction-East Building :Building Construction !6/25/2022 :5/12/2023 1 5� 2307 + I 1 1 5 -Grading :Grading 15/28/2022 :▪6/24/2022 1 51 2- 07 i + , 1 , 1 ✓ i , 6 -Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation !4/16/2022 :4/29/2022 � 51 1- 01 i + ✓ i , I , 1 1 , 7 -Construction-West Building :Building Construction 15/13/2023 :3/29/2024 1 5� 2307 i + ✓ i , I , 1 1 , 8 -Paving-East Building :Paving !3/30/2024 :4/26/2024 51 2- 0: i + ✓ i I , 1 1 , , 9 -Architectural Coatings East Bldg :Architectural Coating 15/25/2024 i6/21/2024 1 i 51 207 + ✓ J4/2712024 15/24/2024 I , 1 1 10 -Paving-West Building :Paving ' 5 I i 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:A▪ rchitectural Coating .6/22/2024 .7/19/2024 5. 20: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 Acres of Paving: 1.8 Residential Indoor: 527,654; Residential Outdoor: 175,885; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,359; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,120; Striped Parking Area: 12,624(Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment Page 1753 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 11 8.001 81: 0.73 ; Demolition :Excavators ; 1 8.001 158 0.38 Demolition :Generator Sets ; 2 4.00i 84' 0.74 y ; Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 2 8.00i 247' 0.40 y ; Site Preparation :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00i 212' 0.43 y ; Site Preparation :Excavators ; 0 8.00i 158' 0.38 y ; Site Preparation :Graders ; 1 8.00i 187' 0.41 y ; Site Preparation :Rollers ; 2 8.00i 80' 0.38 Site Preparation :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00i 247' 0.40 y ; Site Preparation :Scrapers ; 1 8.00i 367' 0.48 y ; Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00i 97' 0.37 y ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.001 212: 0.43 y ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Excavators ; 1 8.001 158: 0.38 y ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00i 247' 0.40 y ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.00i 97' 0.37 y ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Trenchers ; 2 8.00i 78' 0.50 y ; Construction-East Building +Air Compressors ; 10 8.001 78: 0.48 Construction-East Building :Cranes ; 1 7.00i 231' 0.29 y ; Construction-East Building :Forklifts ; 0 8.00i 89' 0.20 1 y _ Construction-East Building Generator Sets ; 2 8.00i 84' 0.74 y ; Construction-East Building :Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2 8.00i 100' 0.40 .1. ; Construction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 7.00i 97' 0.37 y ; Construction-East Building :Welders ; 0 8.00i 46' 0.45 .1. ; Grading :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00i 212' 0.43 .1. ; Grading :Excavators ; 0 8.001 158: 0.38 * r Grading :Graders 1' 8.00: 187' 0.41 Page 1754 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer • Grading •Rollers 2• 8.00• 80• 0.38 Grading [Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00 247' 0.40 • y i Grading [Scrapers ; 1 8.00 367• 0.48 • J. ; Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00 97• 0.37 J. ; Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00 212• 0.43 • J. ; Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Excavators ; 1 8.001 158• 0.38 J. ; Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00 247• 0.40 • J. ; Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.00 97• 0.37 • J. i Trenching/Utilities-West Building [Trenchers ; 2 8.00 78• 0.50 J. ; Construction-West Building +Air Compressors ; 10 8.001 78• 0.48 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Cranes ; 0 7.00 231' 0.29 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Forklifts ; 0 8.00 89• 0.20 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Generator Sets ; 2 8.001 84• 0.74 I J. Construction-West Building [Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2 8.001 100• 0.40 • J. i Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 7.00 97• 0.37 J. ; Construction-West Building :Welders ; 0 8.00 46• 0.45 • J. ; Paving-East Building :Pavers ; 2 8.001 130• 0.42 • J. i Paving-East Building [Paving Equipment ; 2 8.001 132• 0.36 • J. ; Paving-East Building :Rollers ; 2 8.00 80• 0.38 Architectural Coatings East Bldg +Air Compressors ; 4 6.00 78• 0.48 Paving-West Building [Pavers ; 2 8.00 130• 0.42 J. ; Paving-West Building :Paving Equipment ; 2 8.00 132• 0.36 • J. ; Paving-West Building :Rollers ; 2 8.00 80• 0.38 * r Architectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 4• 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT Page 1755 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 40.00. 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix I HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix !HDT_Mix THHDT I I Trenching/Utilites- 6; 40.00. 0.00i 2,880.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix THHDT Cnc.+Q..;Irl;n., , I I , I Construction 'East i 15: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix i HDT_Mix THHDT Q..;Irl;nn , I I , I Grading 6; 40.001 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix THHDT I I , Trenching/Utilities- 6; 40.00. 0.001 1,440.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix i HDT_Mix THHDT \4/..n+Q.dlrlln., I I , I I Construction-West i 14: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix HDT_Mix T ' HHDT Q..;Irl;nn I I , I Paving-East Building ; 6; 40.001 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00;LD_Mix HDT_Mix THHDT I I , Architectural Coatings y 4; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix i HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc.+Qlrl., I I , I I Paving-West Building 6: 40.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00:LD_Mix i HDT_Mix THHDT i r + i * + Architectural Coatings : 4' 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70: 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix •HDT_Mix 'HHDT \l1/..c.+Old, 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 4 2.5643 I 25.0937 I 17.7597 I 0.0351 I I 1.2177 I 1.2177 I 1 1.1441 : 1.1441 • 13,369.785 I 3,369.785 I 0.7586 I i 3,388.750 'I I I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I I 3 .I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I I Total I 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 2 2 3 Page 1756 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 7 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I Hauling .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 1 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 'I I I 1 I I I I I , 1 1 I I 1 �I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I Worker 9 0.1898 1 0.1130 1 1.5212 1 4.2400e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 I 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 1 421.8410 1 421.8410 I 0.0112 1 : 422.1203 '1 I I 003 003 I I I 003 . 1 I I I 1 '1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I Off-Road •� 2.5643 1 25.0937 1 17.7597 1 0.0351 1 1 1.2177 1 1.2177 1 1 1.1441 1.1441 0.0000 3,369.785 1 3,369.785 1 0.7586 1 i 3,388.750 I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 3 '1 I I I I 1 I I I , . 1 1 1 I 1 Total 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 0.0000 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 2 2 3 Page 1757 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I 1 I I i 9I I I • I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 i 1.5212 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 421.8410 1 421.8410 : 0.0112 i i 422.1203 '� 003 003 003 I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 3.1815 0.0000 3.1815 i 0.3435 0.0000 0.3435 •• i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t '� Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 i 16.4479 : 0.0427 i : 1.1687 : 1.1687 i : 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 14,137.845:4,137.845: 1.3383 i 14,171.301 '� I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I u 8 '� I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Page 1758 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • 1 I I • I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.1898 i 0.1130 i 1.5212 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 421.8410 1 421.8410 : 0.0112 i i 422.1203 '� 003 003 003 I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 3.1815 0.0000 3.1815 i 0.3435 0.0000 0.3435 •• i : 0.0000 : i i 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J t Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 i 16.4479 0.0427 i 1.1687 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 1 0.0000 i 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 i 1 4,171.301 9 I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I u 8 '1 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Page 1759 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • 1 I I • I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 i 1.5212 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 421.8410 1 421.8410 : 0.0112 i i 422.1203 '� 003 003 003 I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 1 2.7847 i 0.3111 : 0.0000 ; 0.3111 •• i : 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 i 15.3206 0.0307 i 1.1084 1 1.1084 i 1.0197 1 1.0197 • i 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I • 8 I 8 I I u 8 '� I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 8 8 8 Page 1760 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 1.6178 i 60.2492 i 9.8639 0.2212 i 5.0399 0.1540 5.1938 i 1.3817 0.1473 1.5290 • i 23,501.40 1 23,501.40 1.2436 i i 23,532.49 9 I I I : 69 I 69 I I i 59 '� I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 i 1.5212 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 421.8410 1 421.8410 : 0.0112 i i 422.1203 '� 003 003 003 I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.8076 60.3621 11.3851 0.2254 5.4870 0.1568 5.6437 1.5003 0.1499 1.6502 23,923.24 23,923.24 1.2547 23,954.61 79 79 62 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 1 2.7847 i 0.3111 : 0.0000 : 0.3111 •• i : 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I 1 1 I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 i 15.3206 0.0307 i 1.1084 1 1.1084 i 1.0197 1.0197 • 0.0000 i 2,973.217 2,973.217 1 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I • 8 I 8 I I u 8 '1 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 8 8 8 Page 1761 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 1.6178 i 60.2492 i 9.8639 0.2212 i 5.0399 0.1540 5.1938 i 1.3817 0.1473 1.5290 • i 23,501.40 1 23,501.40 1.2436 i 1 23,532.49 9 i i i i i I I I ; 69 I 69 i I i 59 '� I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I • I I I I 9I I I • I I I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker •1 0.1898 i 0.1130 i 1.5212 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 421.8410 1 421.8410 : 0.0112 i i 422.1203 '� 003 003 003 I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.8076 60.3621 11.3851 0.2254 5.4870 0.1568 5.6437 1.5003 0.1499 1.6502 23,923.24 23,923.24 1.2547 23,954.61 79 79 62 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 4 3.9372 i 31.2581 i 37.7657 0.0647 i 1.6386 1.6386 i 1.6182 1.6182 • i 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 i i 6,172.134 '1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 3 3 1 '1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 3 3 1 Page 1762 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '� 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 '� 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0964 i 3.6585 i 0.6711 0.0107 i 0.2562 5.5600e- 0.2617 i 0.0738 5.3100e- 0.0791 i 1,129.230 1,129.230 0.0695 i i 1,130.966 9 003 I : 003 1 3 3 I i 6 '� 1 1 • I I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.9490 i 0.5648 i 7.6061 0.0212 i 2.2355 0.0139 2.2494 i 0.5929 0.0128 0.6057 i 2,109.204 1 2,109.204 0.0559 i :2,110.601 91 I I I • 1 8 1 8 1 1 4 9I I I I I I I I • I I 1 1 Total 1.0454 4.2232 8.2772 0.0319 2.4917 0.0194 2.5112 0.6666 0.0181 0.6847 3,238.435 3,238.435 0.1253 3,241.567 2 2 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 4 3.9372 i 31.2581 i 37.7657 : 0.0647 i : 1.6386 : 1.6386 i : 1.6182 : 1.6182 •. 0.0000 i 6,155.195:6,155.195: 0.6776 i i 6,172.134 '1 I I I I 1 I I I • I 3 I 3 I I 1 '1 I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 0.0000 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 3 3 1 Page 1763 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '� 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 '� 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0964 i 3.6585 i 0.6711 0.0107 i 0.2562 5.5600e- 0.2617 i 0.0738 5.3100e- 0.0791 i 1,129.230 1,129.230 0.0695 i i 1,130.966 9 003 I : 003 1 3 3 I i 6 '� 1 1 • I I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.9490 i 0.5648 i 7.6061 0.0212 i 2.2355 0.0139 2.2494 i 0.5929 0.0128 0.6057 i 2,109.204 1 2,109.204 0.0559 i :2,110.601 91 I I I • 1 8 1 8 1 1 4 9I I I I I I I I • I I 1 1 Total 1.0454 4.2232 8.2772 0.0319 2.4917 0.0194 2.5112 0.6666 0.0181 0.6847 3,238.435 3,238.435 0.1253 3,241.567 2 2 9 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road .1 3.6862 i 28.9417 i 37.6666 0.0647 i 1.4301 1.4301 i 1.4118 1.4118 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 i i 6,171.618 I I I I 1 I I I • 5 I 5 I I I 2 '� I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 5 5 2 Page 1764 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '� 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 '� 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0728 i 2.8328 i 0.5848 0.0104 i 0.2562 2.7300e- 0.2589 i 0.0738 2.6100e- 0.0764 i 1,097.877 1,097.877 0.0559 i i 1,099.276 9 003 I : 003 1 9 9 I i 3 '� 1 1 • 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.8878 i 0.5086 i 6.9841 0.0204 i 2.2355 0.0135 2.2490 i 0.5929 0.0124 0.6053 i 2,029.900 1 2,029.900 0.0500 i :2,031.150 9I I I I • I 4 I 4 I I , 7 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 3.6862 i 28.9417 I 37.6666 i 0.0647 i ; 1.4301 I 1.4301 ; i 1.4118 1.4118 •• 0.0000 i 6,155.283 i 6,155.283; 0.6534 i i 6,171.618 y I I I I I I I I • I 5 I 5 I I I 2 '� I I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 0.0000 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 5 5 2 Page 1765 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 1 I I I I I I 1 9 1 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0728 i 2.8328 i 0.5848 0.0104 i 0.2562 2.7300e- 0.2589 i 0.0738 2.6100e- 0.0764 i 1,097.877 1,097.877 0.0559 i i 1,099.276 9 003 I : 003 1 9 9 I i 3 '� 1 1 . 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.8878 i 0.5086 i 6.9841 0.0204 i 2.2355 0.0135 2.2490 i 0.5929 0.0124 0.6053 i 2,029.900 1 2,029.900 0.0500 i :2,031.150 9I I I I I 4 I 4 I I 7 9I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 2.3861 i 0.0000 2.3861 0.2577 i 0.0000 0.2577 • i 1 0.0000 : i i 0.0000 I I I I I I I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J I J t '� Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 i 16.4479 : 0.0427 i 1 1.1687 : 1.1687 i : 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 1 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 9I I 1 1 I I 2 I 2 I I u 8 9I I 1 1 I I I I I I Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Page 1766 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 9I I I • I I I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.1898 i 0.1130 i 1.5212 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 421.8410 1 421.8410 : 0.0112 i i 422.1203 '� 003 003 003 I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 2.3861 i 0.0000 2.3861 0.2577 i 0.0000 0.2577 • i 1 0.0000 : i i 0.0000 I I I I I I • I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J J I J t Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 i 16.4479 0.0427 1 1.1687 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 1 0.0000 i 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1.3383 i 1 4,171.301 9 I I 1 1 I I • 2 I 2 I I u 8 '1 I I 1 1 I I • I I I I Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Page 1767 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I 1 I I i 9I I I • I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 i 1.5212 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 421.8410 1 421.8410 : 0.0112 i i 422.1203 '� 003 003 003 I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 421.8410 421.8410 0.0112 422.1203 003 003 003 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 1.3924 : 0.0000 : 1.3924 i 0.1556 : 0.0000 : 0.1556 •• i : 0.0000 : i 1 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J I J t Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 i 15.3206 0.0307 i 1.1084 1.1084 i 1.0197 1 1.0197 • i 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I 1 I I I • 8 I 8 I I u 8 '� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 8 8 8 Page 1768 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I Hauling 40.8089 I 30.1246 I 4.9320 0.1106 I 2.5199 0.0770 I 2.5969 I 0.6909 0.0737 0.7645 • 111,750.70 I I I 11,750.70 0.6218 I i 11,766.24 9 I I I .I ' I I I I I I I ' • I 35 I 35 I I 1 80 ,I J J J J J J 7 I J J J t I I I I I I I I I Vendor .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I i 0.0000 'I • I I I I I I I I • I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I I �1 J J J J J J J J 7 I I I II I I J J J t Worker .1 0.1898 0.1130 1.5212 4.2400e- 0.4471 2.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 � 421.8410 1421.8410 I 0.0112 I i 422.1203 I' 003 I II 003 I I 003 I I I I' . I I I I I Total 0.9987 30.2376 6.4532 0.1148 2.9671 0.0798 3.0468 0.8094 0.0762 0.8857 • 12,172.54 12,172.54 0.6330 12,188.36 44 44 82 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 Dust •I 1.3924 I 0.0000 I 1.3924 I 0.1556 I 0.0000 : 0.1556 ••; I 0.0000 I I 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I II I I I• 'I J J J J J J m J I J t Off-Road 9 2.0787 22.2277 I 15.3206 I 0.0307 I 1.1084 I 1.1084 I I 1.0197 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217 1 2,973.217 1 0.9616 I i 2,997.257 'I I I I I I I I I • I 8 I 8 I I I 8 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I I Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 8 8 8 Page 1769 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.8089 i 30.1246 i 4.9320 0.1106 i 2.5199 0.0770 2.5969 i 0.6909 0.0737 0.7645 i 11,750.70 1 11,750.70 0.6218 i i 11,766.24 9 I I •� I ' I ' ' I ' • I 35 I 35 I I 1 80 ,� J J J J J J 7 J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I 1 I I 9I I I • I I I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.1898 i 0.1130 i 1.5212 4.2400e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 421.8410 1 421.8410 : 0.0112 i i 422.1203 '� 003 003 003 I I I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9987 30.2376 6.4532 0.1148 2.9671 0.0798 3.0468 0.8094 0.0762 0.8857 12,172.54 12,172.54 0.6330 12,188.36 44 44 82 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 3.3787 i 25.6032 i 36.0615 0.0597 1 1.2907 1.2907 i 1.2835 1.2835 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 i i 5,678.697 I I I I 1 1 I I 7 I 7 I I I 8 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 7 7 8 Page 1770 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 91 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0728 i 2.8328 i 0.5848 0.0104 i 0.2562 2.7300e- 0.2589 i 0.0738 2.6100e- 0.0764 i 1,097.877 1,097.877 0.0559 i i 1,099.276 9 003 I : 003 1 9 9 I i 3 '� 1 1 . 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.8878 i 0.5086 i 6.9841 0.0204 i 2.2355 0.0135 2.2490 i 0.5929 0.0124 0.6053 i 2,029.900 1 2,029.900 0.0500 i :2,031.150 9I I I I I 4 I 4 I I , 7 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 3.3787 i 25.6032 i 36.0615 : 0.0597 1 : 1.2907 : 1.2907 i : 1.2835 : 1.2835 •• 0.0000 i 5,666.316: 5,666.316: 0.4953 i i 5,678.697 y I I I I 1 1 I I I 7 I 7 I I I 8 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 0.0000 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 7 7 8 Page 1771 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 1 I I I I I I 1 9 1 I I I . I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0728 i 2.8328 i 0.5848 0.0104 i 0.2562 2.7300e- 0.2589 i 0.0738 2.6100e- 0.0764 i 1,097.877 1,097.877 0.0559 i i 1,099.276 9 003 I : 003 1 9 9 I i 3 '� 1 1 . 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.8878 i 0.5086 i 6.9841 0.0204 i 2.2355 0.0135 2.2490 i 0.5929 0.0124 0.6053 i 2,029.900 1 2,029.900 0.0500 i :2,031.150 9I I I I I 4 I 4 I I , 7 9I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9606 3.3414 7.5689 0.0308 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6817 3,127.778 3,127.778 0.1060 3,130.427 3 3 0 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road i.i 3.1851 i 24.0403 i 36.0409 i 0.0597 i 1 1.1159 i 1.1159 i 1.1093 1.1093 • i 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 i i 5,678.122 I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 5 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 2 2 5 Page 1772 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 91 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0718 i 2.8460 i 0.5625 0.0104 i 0.2562 2.7300e- 0.2589 i 0.0738 2.6100e- 0.0764 i 1,096.475 1,096.475 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 9 003 I : 003 1 9 9 I i 1 '� I 1 . 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.8353 i 0.4609 i 6.5130 0.0197 i 2.2355 0.0134 2.2489 i 0.5929 0.0123 0.6052 i 1,964.071 1 1,964.071 0.0457 i i 1,965.212 9 I I I I • 6 I 6 I I 9 '� I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9071 3.3068 7.0755 0.0301 2.4917 0.0161 2.5078 0.6666 0.0149 0.6816 3,060.547 3,060.547 0.1015 3,063.086 5 5 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 3.1851 i 24.0403 i 36.0409 ; 0.0597 i ; 1.1159 ; 1.1159 i ; 1.1093 1.1093 •. 0.0000 i 5,666.182; 5,666.182 ; 0.4776 i i 5,678.122 '1 I I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I 5 '1 I I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 0.0000 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 2 2 5 Page 1773 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 9 • 1 I I ,i J . J Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 i 0.5625 ; 0.0104 i 0.2562 ; 2.7300e- ; 0.2589 i 0.0738 ; 2.6100e- 0.0764 . i 1,096.475; 1,096.475; 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 9I 1 1 003 1 I : • 003 1 9 9 i 1 91 • 1 NI V Worker 9 0.8353 i 0.4609 i 6.5130 ; 0.0197 i 2.2355 ; 0.0134 ; 2.2489 i 0.5929 ; 0.0123 0.6052 . i 1,964.071 ; 1,964.071 ; 0.0457 i i 1,965.212 9 • I 6 I 6 I I 1 9 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.9071 3.3068 7.0755 0.0301 2.4917 0.0161 2.5078 0.6666 0.0149 0.6816 3,060.547 3,060.547 0.1015 3,063.086 5 5 0 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 14.6258 i 0.0228 i 0.4685 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I • 2 I 2 I I 1 3 '1 1 1 I I I I• '1 - J J 1 1. Paving 9i 0.2358 i 1 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; i 0.0000 : 0.0000 � i 0.0000 ; i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I I I I I 1 Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 Page 1774 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 i 0.5625 0.0104 i 0.2562 2.7300e- 0.2589 i 0.0738 2.6100e- 0.0764 i 1,096.475 1,096.475 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 9 I I I 003 I I I 003 9 I 9 I I i 1 '� I I I I I I • I I I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 i 1.3026 : 3.9400e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 392.8143 : 392.8143 : 9.1300e- i : 393.0426 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I , I I 1 Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 003 003 2 2 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 : 0.0228 i : 0.4685 : 0.4685 i : 0.4310 : 0.4310 •. 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547: 0.7140 i 12,225.396 '� 1 1 I I 2 I 2 I I 3 '1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I '1 J J J J J J J J - J J J t Paving 9 0.2358 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 Page 1775 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I 1 1 I I • I 1 I I 9 • 1 I I ,i J . J Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 i 0.5625 I 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- I 0.2589 I 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 . i 1,096.475 11,096.475 I 0.0559 I i 1,097.873 '� I I I I I 003 1 I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 1 '9 I I I I I I I • I I I I ,i i J . J Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 i 1.3026 13.9400e- i 0.4471 12.6800e- I 0.4498 I 0.1186 12.4600e- 0.1210 . i 392.8143 1392.8143 19.1300e- I : 393.0426 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I , I I Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 003 003 2 2 7 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating •i 88.2672 1 1 i iI 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 • i i 0.0000 I 1 1 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I • I 1 I 1 9 I I I I 1 1 I I • I 1 I 1 m J I J 1. 'l Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 I 7.2405 I 0.0119 i I 0.2437 I 0.2437 I I 0.2437 : 0.2437 • i 1,125.792 11,125.792 I 0.0634 I 11,127.377 '� I I I I I I I I • I 2 I 2 I I : 0 '� I I I 1 1 I I • I 1 1 I Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 2 2 0 Page 1776 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,�1 J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I I I I • I , I I 9I I I I I I . I I I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 i 1.3026 : 3.9400e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 392.8143 1 392.8143 : 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I , I I 1 Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i : 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 .1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 •� I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 i 7.2405 0.0119 i 0.2437 1 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 0.0000 i 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 0 9 I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 2 2 0 Page 1777 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I I •I I I • I 1 I I ,i J . J Vendor .1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I , I I 9I I I I I • I I I ,i J . J Worker .1 0.1671 i 0.0922 i 1.3026 : 3.9400e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 . i 392.8143 1 392.8143 : 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I , I I Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 14.6258 i 0.0228 i 0.4685 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I • 2 I 2 I I 1 3 '1 1 1 I I I I• '1 - J J 1 1. Paving 9i 0.2358 i 1 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; i 0.0000 : 0.0000 � i 0.0000 ; 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I 1 Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 Page 1778 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 • 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 i 0.5625 0.0104 i 0.2562 2.7300e- 0.2589 i 0.0738 2.6100e- 0.0764 i 1,096.475 1,096.475 0.0559 i i 1,097.873 9 I I I 003 I I I 003 9 I 9 I I i 1 '� I I I I I I • I I I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 i 1.3026 : 3.9400e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 392.8143 : 392.8143 : 9.1300e- i : 393.0426 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I , I I 1 Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 003 003 2 2 7 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 : 0.0228 i : 0.4685 : 0.4685 i : 0.4310 : 0.4310 •. 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547: 0.7140 i 12,225.396 '� 1 1 I I 2 I 2 I I 3 '1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I '1 J J J J J J J J - J J J t Paving 9 0.2358 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 Page 1779 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I 1 1 I I • I 1 I I 9 • 1 I I ,i J . J Vendor 9 0.0718 i 2.8460 i 0.5625 I 0.0104 i 0.2562 1 2.7300e- I 0.2589 I 0.0738 1 2.6100e- 0.0764 . i 1,096.475 11,096.475 I 0.0559 I i 1,097.873 '� I I I I I 003 1 I I 003 . 9 I 9 I I I 1 '9 I I I I I I I • I I I I ,i i J . J I V Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 i 1.3026 13.9400e- i 0.4471 12.6800e- I 0.4498 I 0.1186 12.4600e- 0.1210 . i 392.8143 1392.8143 19.1300e- I : 393.0426 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I , I I Total 0.2389 2.9381 1.8651 0.0143 0.7033 5.4100e- 0.7087 0.1923 5.0700e- 0.1974 1,489.290 1,489.290 0.0650 1,490.915 003 003 2 2 7 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating •i 88.2672 1 1 i i1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 • i i 0.0000 1 1 1 1 0.0000 ;� I I I I I I I • I 1 I 1 q I I I I 1 1 I I • I 1 I 1 m J I J 1. '1 Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 I 7.2405 I 0.0119 i I 0.2437 I 0.2437 I I 0.2437 : 0.2437 • i 1,125.792 11,125.792 I 0.0634 I 11,127.377 '� I I I I I I I I • I 2 I 2 I I : 0 '� I I I 1 1 I I • I 1 1 I Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 2 2 0 Page 1780 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '� I I I I I I • I I I I 1 '� I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,�1 J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I �� J J J J J J J J • 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1671 i 0.0922 i 1.3026 : 3.9400e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 392.8143 1 392.8143 : 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i : 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 ;� I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 •� I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 i 7.2405 0.0119 i 0.2437 1 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 0.0000 i 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I 0 9I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 2 2 0 Page 1781 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.1671 i 0.0922 i 1.3026 3.9400e- i 0.4471 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 392.8143 1 392.8143 1 9.1300e- i i 393.0426 9 I I I 003 I I 003 1 I 1 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1671 0.0922 1.3026 3.9400e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 392.8143 392.8143 9.1300e- 393.0426 003 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Page 1782 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2 5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 2.8630 : 16.4952 1 37.0284 i 0.1600 i 12.7073 : 0.0913 i 12.7986 i 3.3998 i 0.0851 3.4849 : i 16,342.15: 16,342.15: 0.6809 i 1 16,359.17 •� . 46 I 46 I I 1 74 9I I I I I I I I I I I I. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. } 1. 1. r e } 1. r Unmitigated • 2.8630 • 16.4952 • 37.0284 • 0.1600 • 12.7073 • 0.0913 • 12.7986 • 3.3998 • 0.0851 3.4849 • 16,342.15• 16,342.15• 0.6809 • • 16,359.17 46 46 74 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 2 1,419.32 ; 1,419.32 1419.32 5,631,294 5,631,294 City Park ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse + 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y Parking Lot ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall ; 83.03 ; 83.03 83.03 • 329,439 • 329,439 Total I 1,502.35 I 1,502.35 1,502.35 I 5,960,733 I 5,960,733 4.3 Trip Type Information Page 1783 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 42 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.90 10.90 1 10.90 40.00 20.00 40.00 100 0 0 City Park 16.60 I 8.40 T 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 19.00 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse 14.70 5.90 ? 8.70 ,i 40.00 I 20.00 • 40.00 • 100 • 0 r 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 I 8.40 T 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 ▪ 8.40 ? 6.90 i 33.00 48.00 T 19.00 • 77 • 19 r 4 Parking Lot 16.60 I 8.40 T 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 16.60 ▪ 8.40 ? 6.90 i 33.00 48.00 T 19.00 • 52 • 39 r 9 4 Strip Mall 10.90 • 10.90 10.90 • 16.60 • 64.40 ? 19.00 • 100 • 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800 i 0.111169 i 0.014289 i 0.004794 i 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365 i 0.001491: 0.005725 i 0.000799: 0.000830 i- ---i i i i i i i i i t + City Park • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799' 0.000830 i- ---i i i i t i i i i t + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799' 0.000830 i- ---t t t i t i i t i t + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 i- ---t t t t t t i t i t + General Office Building • 0.558745v 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 i- ---i i i t t i i t i t + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799' 0.000830 i- ---i i i i i i i i i t + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 vI I I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Page 1784 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.1146 0.9797 : 0.4196 : 6.2500e- i i 0.0792 i 0.0792 i i 0.0792 0.0792 • i 1,250.200: 1,250.200: 0.0240 � 0.0229 i 1,257.629 Mitigated ;i 003 • i 1 I 1 I I 1 4 I I I I I I:I. } } } } } } } } r } } } r NaturalGas • 0.1146 • 0.9797 • 0.4196 • 6.2500e- • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 1,250.200• 1,250.200• 0.0240 • 0.0229 • 1,257.629 Unmitigated 003 1 1 4 Page 1785 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I Apartments Mid i 10497.7 •i 0.1132 1 0.9674 1 0.4117 1 6.1800e- 1 1 0.0782 1 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 : 1 1,235.025 1 1,235.025 1 0.0237 1 0.0226 i 1,242.364 Rise I .I I 1 1 003 I I I I 1 . I 5 I 5 I I 1 7 1 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I 1 -1 J J J J .1 1 J I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I City Park 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 'I I 1 I I I I I I • I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I I 41 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I Condo/Townhous I 62.0919 •1 6.7000e- 1 5.7200e- I 2.4300e- 1 4.0000e- 1 I 4.6000e- 1 4.6000e- 1 I 4.6000e- ; 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 I 7.3049 1 1.4000e- 1 1.3000e- i 7.3483 e I '1 004 I 003 1 003 I 005 I I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 : 1 I 1 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I 004 I 004 41 J J J J J J J J I J J J I I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 I : I I Enclosed Parking 1 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 with Elevator 1 '1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I . I 1 I I 1 1 'I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , , I 1 1 I 1 ?I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J I I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I General Office i 46.5836 .1 5.0000e- 1 4.5700e- 3.8400e- 1 3.0000e- 1 I 3.5000e- 1 3.5000e- 1 1 3.5000e- ; 3.5000e- • 1 5.4804 I 5.4804 1 1.1000e- 1 1.0000e- i 5.5130 Building i ;' 004 1 003 I 003 1 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 i I I 004 I 004 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I , . I I I 1 I- 9 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J I I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 I : I I Parking Lot 1 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 'I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I 1 i 41 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J I I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 I : I I Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 Swimming Pool I 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I 1 41 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J I I : 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I Strip Mall 120.3084 .1 2.2000e- 1 1.9900e- 1.6700e- 1 1.0000e- 1 I 1.5000e- 1 1.5000e- I 1.5000e- 1.5000e- I 1 2.3892 I 2.3892 1 5.0000e- 1 4.0000e- : 2.4034 1 'I 004 I 003 I 003 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 1 1 'I I 1 I I I I I I , I I I I 005 I 005 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 Page 1786 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 45 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I Apartments Mid i 10.4977 •i 0.1132 1 0.9674 1 0.4117 1 6.1800e- 1 1 0.0782 1 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 : 1 1,235.025 1 1,235.025 1 0.0237 1 0.0226 i 1,242.364 Rise I .I I 1 1 003 I I I I 1 . 1 5 I 5 I I 1 7 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I I 1 -1 J J J J .1 1 J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I City Park 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 '1 I 1 I I I I I I • I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • 1 I I I 1 41 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J 1 I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I Condo/Townhous i 0.06209199 6.7000e- 1 5.7200e- 2.4300e- 1 4.0000e- 1 I 4.6000e- 1 4.6000e- 1 I 4.6000e- 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 I 7.3049 1 1.4000e- 1 1.3000e- i 7.3483 e I '1 004 I 003 1 003 I 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 : 1 I 1 1 'I I 1 1 I I I I I , I 1 I I 004 I 004 -1 J J J J V I J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I Enclosed Parking i 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator I '1 I 1 I I I I I I . I I I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I 1 1 , , I 1 1 I 1 r ?I J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I General Office 10.0465836.1 5.0000e- 1 4.5700e- I 3.8400e- 1 3.0000e- 1 I 3.5000e- 1 3.5000e- 1 1 3.5000e- 3.5000e- 1 1 5.4804 I 5.4804 1 1.1000e- 1 1.0000e- i 5.5130 Building i ;: 004 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 i 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I 1 1 i 9 J J J J J J J J I J J J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I Parking Lot 1 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 '1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I I 1 i 41 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 Swimming Pool I 'I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 . 1 I 1 1 I 1 '1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , • 1 I 1 I 1 h 41 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I Strip Mall i 0.0203084.1 2.2000e- 1 1.9900e- I 1.6700e- 1 1.0000e- 1 I 1.5000e- 1 1.5000e- I 1.5000e- 1.5000e- I 1 2.3892 I 2.3892 1 5.0000e- 1 4.0000e- 1 2.4034 1 '1 004 1 003 I 003 005 1 I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 . 1 I I 005 1 005 1 1 '1 I 1 I I I I I I , • 1 I 1 1 1 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Page 1787 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 46 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 7.0358 i 4.5605 i 23.3317 : 0.0287 : i 0.4677 i 0.4677 i i 0.4677 � 0.4677 : 0.0000 i 5,544.624: 5,544.624 i 0.1429 : 0.1009 i 5,578.277 9I I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I 1 1 •I I I I I I I I • I I I :1- } } } } } } } } r 1. 1. } Unmitigated • 7.0358 • 4.5605 • 23.3317 • 0.0287 • • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • 0.0000 5,544.624• 5,544.624• 0.1429 • 0.1009 •5,578.277 2 2 1 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.4837 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • : 0.0000 i I i 0.0000 Coating :: I I •i I I I I I I 1 I • I I 1 • J J Consumer 9 5.3977 i 1 1 1 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • : 0.0000 i I I 0.0000 Products :: I '� 1 I I I I I I I • I I 1 Hearth 9 0.5047 i 4.3129 : 1.8353 i 0.0275 i : 0.3487 i 0.3487 : i 0.3487 0.3487 • 0.0000 5,505.882: 5,505.882 i 0.1055 : 0.1009 15,538.601 'I I I I I I I I I 4 1 4 I I I 1 'I I I I I I I 1 I • I I 1 •iI J J J I 1 ' Landscaping 9 0.6498 i 0.2475 1 21.4964 i 1.1400e- i 1 0.1190 i 0.1190 : i 0.1190 0.1190 • 38.7418 : 38.7418 i 0.0374 : I 39.6760 •I I I I 003 I I I I I • I I I I Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 Page 1788 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 47 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Architectural •i 0.4837 i 1 i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • i : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating •': .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I , I 1 I I ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J Consumer •1 5.3977 i 1 i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 0.0000 . i : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 Products •: I I I I I I I I . I I I I I '� I I I I I I I I . I I I I ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J Hearth •1 0.5047 i 4.3129 : 1.8353 i 0.0275 i : 0.3487 i 0.3487 : i 0.3487 0.3487 : 0.0000 i 5,505.882: 5,505.882 i 0.1055 1 0.1009 :5,538.601 •1 I I I I I I I I • I 4 I 4 I I i 1 •I I I I I I I 1 I . I I I I . J J J J J J J J I J J J Landscaping .1 0.6498 i 0.2475 : 21.4964 i 1.1400e- i : 0.1190 i 0.1190 : i 0.1190 0.1190 • i 38.7418 : 38.7418 i 0.0374 1 i 39.6760 •1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 9I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad IEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Page 1789 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 48 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:31 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Summer Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type I Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation Page 1790 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric I Lot Acreage I Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 7.60 + 1000sgft ; 0.00 4,900.00 1 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 300.00 + Space ; 0.00 120,000.00 + 0 Parking Lot 226.00 + Space ; 1.80 90,400.00 + 0 City Park 0.33 + Acre ; 0.33 14,374.80 + 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 3.00 + 1000sgft ; 0.07 3,000.00 + 0 Apartments Mid Rise 259.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 3.00 259,000.00 + 741 Condo/Townhouse 1.00 + Dwelling Unit ; 0.00 1,570.00 + 3 4 4- f I. Strip Mall 3.34 1000sgft 0.00 3,339.00 0 • 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 32 Climate Zone 10 Operational Year 2024 Utility Company Southern California Edison CO2 Intensity 630 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N20 Intensity 0.006 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect CO2 Intensity Factor" Land Use- See SWAPE comments on "Failure to Model Required Amount of Parking" and "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Land Us Enclosed Parking= 57% of total, Parking Lot=43% of total parking. Page 1791 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Construction Phase- Consistent with IS/MND's model Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Off-road Equipment- See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Equipment Horsepower Values" Off-road Equipment- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Trips and VMT- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Grading - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Architectural Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Vehicle Trips - Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Woodstoves-Woodstoves: consistent with IS/MND's model. Fireplaces: See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Gas Fireplace Values" Area Coating - See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors" Energy Use - Water And Wastewater- Consistent with the IS/MND's model. Solid Waste-See SWAPE comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Solid Waste Generation Rates" Total adds up to 584 tons/year Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures" Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Energy Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Page 1792 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on "Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures" Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberGas 220.15 259.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberGas 0.85 1.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 25.90 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.10 0.00 . 4 I" 4 tblFireplaces NumberWood 12.95 0.00 . 4 I" tblFireplaces NumberWood 0.05 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 50.00 T 60.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 50.00 T 45.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 T 24.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 T 12.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 T 21,180.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 T 10,590.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 7,600.00 T 4,900.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,000.00 T 1,570.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,340.00 T 3,339.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.17 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.70 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.03 T 1.80 tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.82 T 3.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 T 0.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.08 T 0.00 I- 4 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount T 1.00 4.00 1 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 Page 1793 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 7 1.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 2.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 2.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 4.00 1.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 4.00 1.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblOffRoadEquipment • OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount i 1.00 0.00 r 4 • tblProjectCharacteristics CO2lntensityFactor i 702.44 630 r 4 • tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate i 119.14 555.83 v r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber i 2,648.00 2,880.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber i 1,324.00 1,440.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber i 0.00 40.00 r • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber i 66.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 66.00 40.00 Page 1794 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter tblTripsAndVMT • VendorTripNumber • 0.00 40.00 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 57.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 286.00 200.00 r 4 • tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 286.00 200.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 15.00 40.00 r 4 . tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber i 57.00 40.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips CC_TL i 8.40 10.90 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips CNWTL i 6.90 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips CWTL i 16.60 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips DVTP i 11.00 0.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips DVTP i 11.00 0.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips DV_TP i 40.00 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips HO_TL i 8.70 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP i 40.60 40.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HO_TTP i 40.60 40.00 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HS_TL i 5.90 10.90 r 4 . tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP i 19.20 20.00 r . tblVehicleTrips HS_TTP i 19.20 20.00 r . tblVehicleTrips HWTL i 14.70 10.90 r • tblVehicleTrips HWTTP i 40.20 40.00 tblVehicleTrips HWTTP 40.20 • 40.00 Page 1795 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblVehicleTrips PBTP 3.00 0.00 • • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP } 3.00 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PB_TP i 15.00 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP } 86.00 100.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP } 86.00 100.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips PR_TP } 45.00 100.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 6.39 5.48 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 22.75 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 5.67 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips ST_TR i 2.46 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 9.10 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips STTR i 42.04 24.86 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 5.86 5.48 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 16.74 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 4.84 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SU_TR i 1.05 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 13.60 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips SUTR i 20.43 24.86 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 6.65 5.48 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 1.89 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 5.81 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 11.03 0.00 r 4 • tblVehicleTrips WDTR i 33.82 0.00 r • tblVehicleTrips WD_TR } 44.32 24.86 r • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 16,874,892.64 16,940,046.66 r • tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate i 177,429.43 0.00 tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 10,638,519.27 • 10,679,594.63 • Page 1796 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 827,895.26 0.00 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic i 12.95 7 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic i 0.05 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic i 12.95 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic i 0.05 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear i 25.00 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear i 25.00 0.00 r 4 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass i 999.60 0.00 • tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 • 2.0 Emissions Summary Page 1797 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day 2022 •1 4.9932 i 82.6995 ; 44.7823 i 0.2498 ; 8.2717 1.6582 i 9.5391 1.8114 i 1.6365 2.9832 • 0.0000 i 26,230.58;26,230.58 i 2.3224 ; 0.0000 i 26,288.64 '1 I I I I I I I I • 9 I I I I I I I I ' • I 29 i 29 i II i 33 ,� J J J 2023 •1 4.6581 i 32.2705 ; 44.0472 i 0.0930 ; 2.4917 1.4465 i 3.9382 0.6666 i 1.4269 2.0936 : 0.0000 i 9,032.143;9,032.143 i 0.7591 ; 0.0000 1 9,051.121 '1 I I I I I I I I • 8 I 8 I I 1 5 'I 1 I I 1 1 I I I • I I I e J J J J J J J J .• I J J J 2024 •1 89.1591 i 27.3329 ; 42.0026 i 0.0873 ; 2.4917 1.1321 i 3.6238 0.6666 i 1.1243 1.7910 : 0.0000 i 8,483.069;8,483.069 i 0.7838 ; 0.0000 1 8,497.557 '1 I I I I I I I I • I I I I 4 I 4 I 1 1 3 '1 I I I 1 I I I I • 1 Maximum 89.1591 82.6995 44.7823 0.2498 8.2717 1.6582 9.5391 1.8114 1.6365 2.9832 0.0000 26,230.58 26,230.58 2.3224 0.0000 26,288.64 11 29 29 33 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year lb/day lb/day 2022 9 4.9932 i 82.6995 i 44.7823 i 0.2498 i 8.2717 1.6582 i 9.5391 i 1.8114 i 1.6365 2.9832 0.0000 i 26,230.58 i 26,230.58 i 2.3224 0.0000 i 26,288.64 •1 I I I I I I I I ■ 29 I 29 I I 1 33 ;� :I I I I I I I I • I I I J J J J J J J J I J J J1. 2023 9 4.6581 i 32.2705 ; 44.0472 i 0.0930 1 2.4917 ; 1.4465 i 3.9382 ; 0.6666 i 1.4269 2.0936 • 0.0000 9,032.143;9,032.143 i 0.7591 ; 0.0000 i 9,051.121 '1 I I I I I I I I • 8 I 8 I I 1 5 '1 I I I I I I I I • I I I •I J J J J J J J J i J J J1. 2024 9 89.1591 i 27.3329 ; 42.0026 i 0.0873 1 2.4917 ; 1.1321 i 3.6238 ; 0.6666 i 1.1243 1.7910 : 0.0000 18,483.069;8,483.069 i 0.7838 ; 0.0000 1 8,497.557 '1 I I I I I I I • 4 4 I I 1 3 I I I I I I I I • I Maximum 89.1591 82.6995 44.7823 0.2498 8.2717 1.6582 9.5391 1.8114 1.6365 2.9832 0.0000 26,230.58 26,230.58 2.3224 0.0000 26,288.64 29 29 33 Page 1798 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction Page 1799 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 7.0358 i 4.5605 1 23.3317 i 0.0287 1 : 0.4677 0.4677 : i 0.4677 0.4677 • 0.0000 i 5,544.624: 5,544.624 i 0.1429 1 0.1009 1 5,578.277 9 I I I 1 I I I I ; 2 I 2 I 1 i 1 'I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I ■ I I 1 1 ;l J J J J J J J J . I J J J Energy •1 0.1146 i 0.9797 : 0.4196 i 6.2500e- : 1 0.0792 i 0.0792 : i 0.0792 0.0792 • i 1,250.200: 1,250.200 i 0.0240 : 0.0229 I 1,257.629 •1 I I I 003 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 4 9 I I I I 1 ■ 1 1 ;� J J J J J J J J J J J Mobile .1 2.4971 i 16.5393 : 32.0045 i 0.1477 : 12.7073 1 0.0917 i 12.7990 : 3.3998 i 0.0855 3.4853 • i 15,111.76: 15,111.76 i 0.6865 : 115,128.93 '1 I I I I I I I I ; 81 I 81 I '1 I I I 1 I I I I ■ I I 1 i 14 Total 9.6475 22.0795 55.7558 0.1827 12.7073 0.6387 13.3459 3.3998 0.6324 4.0323 0.0000 21,906.59 21,906.59 0.8534 0.1239 21,964.83 24 24 79 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Area •i 7.0358 i 4.5605 23.3317 i 0.0287 0.4677 i 0.4677 i 0.4677 0.4677 • 0.0000 i 5,544.624 5,544.624 i 0.1429 0.1009 i 5,578.277 •1 I I I I I I I I ■ : 2 1 2 I I 1 1 ;� I I I I I I I I , I I ei J J J J J J J Jv I J J J 1. Energy �i 0.1146 i 0.9797 0.4196 i 6.2500e- 0.0792 i 0.0792 i 0.0792 0.0792 • 1,250.200 1,250.200 i 0.0240 0.0229 i 1,257.629 •1 I I I 003 I I I I I ■ 1 I 1 I I i 4 •� I I I I I I I I , I I I J J J J J J J J v J J J 1. Mobile �1 2.4971 i 16.5393 32.0045 i 0.1477 12.7073 0.0917 i 12.7990 3.3998 i 0.0855 3.4853 • I 15,111.76 15,111.76 i 0.6865 i 15,128.93 I I I I I I I I ■ 81 I 81 I I i 14 '� I I I I I I I I I I I Total 9.6475 22.0795 55.7558 0.1827 12.7073 0.6387 13.3459 3.3998 0.6324 4.0323 0.0000 21,906.59 21,906.59 0.8534 0.1239 21,964.83 24 24 79 Page 1800 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 -Demolition :Demolition 13/5/2022 14/1/2022 1 5: 20: i + I , 1 1 ✓ i -I 2 -Site Preparation :Grading !4/30/2022 :5/27/2022 1 5,� 2- 07 i r i , , , 3 -Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Site Preparation !4/2/2022 :4/15/2022 � 51 1- 01 i + ✓ i , I , 1 1 , 4 -Construction-East Building :Building Construction !6/25/2022 :5/12/2023 1 5� 2307 + I 1 1 5 -Grading :Grading 15/28/2022 :▪6/24/2022 1 51 2- 07 i + , 1 , 1 ✓ i , 6 -Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Site Preparation !4/16/2022 :4/29/2022 � 51 1- 01 i + ✓ i , I , 1 1 , 7 -Construction-West Building :Building Construction 15/13/2023 :3/29/2024 1 5� 2307 i + ✓ i , I , 1 1 , 8 -Paving-East Building :Paving !3/30/2024 :4/26/2024 51 2- 0: i + ✓ i I , 1 1 , , 9 -Architectural Coatings East Bldg :Architectural Coating 15/25/2024 i6/21/2024 1 i 51 207 + ✓ J4/2712024 15/24/2024 I , 1 1 10 -Paving-West Building :Paving ' 5 I i 11 :Architectural Coatings-West Bldg:A▪ rchitectural Coating .6/22/2024 .7/19/2024 5. 20: Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 60 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 45 Acres of Paving: 1.8 Residential Indoor: 527,654; Residential Outdoor: 175,885; Non-Residential Indoor: 12,359; Non-Residential Outdoor: 4,120; Striped Parking Area: 12,624(Architectural Coating—sqft) OffRoad Equipment Page 1801 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws ; 11 8.001 81: 0.73 ; Demolition :Excavators ; 1 8.001 158 0.38 Demolition :Generator Sets ; 2 4.00i 84' 0.74 y ; Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 2 8.00i 247' 0.40 y ; Site Preparation :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00i 212' 0.43 y ; Site Preparation :Excavators ; 0 8.00i 158' 0.38 y ; Site Preparation :Graders ; 1 8.00i 187' 0.41 y ; Site Preparation :Rollers ; 2 8.00i 80' 0.38 Site Preparation :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00i 247' 0.40 y ; Site Preparation :Scrapers ; 1 8.00i 367' 0.48 y ; Site Preparation +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00i 97' 0.37 y ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.001 212: 0.43 y ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Excavators ; 1 8.001 158: 0.38 y ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00i 247' 0.40 y ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.00i 97' 0.37 y ; Trenching/Utilites-East Building :Trenchers ; 2 8.00i 78' 0.50 y ; Construction-East Building +Air Compressors ; 10 8.001 78: 0.48 Construction-East Building :Cranes ; 1 7.00i 231' 0.29 y ; Construction-East Building :Forklifts ; 0 8.00i 89' 0.20 1 y _ Construction-East Building Generator Sets ; 2 8.00i 84' 0.74 y ; Construction-East Building :Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2 8.00i 100' 0.40 .1. ; Construction-East Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 7.00i 97' 0.37 y ; Construction-East Building :Welders ; 0 8.00i 46' 0.45 .1. ; Grading :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00i 212' 0.43 .1. ; Grading :Excavators ; 0 8.001 158: 0.38 * r Grading :Graders 1' 8.00: 187' 0.41 Page 1802 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter • Grading •Rollers 2• 8.00• 80• 0.38 Grading [Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00 247' 0.40 • y i Grading [Scrapers ; 1 8.00 367• 0.48 • J. ; Grading +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 8.00 97• 0.37 J. ; Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Crawler Tractors ; 2 8.00 212• 0.43 • J. ; Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Excavators ; 1 8.001 158• 0.38 J. ; Trenching/Utilities-West Building :Rubber Tired Dozers ; 0 8.00 247• 0.40 • J. ; Trenching/Utilities-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 1 8.00 97• 0.37 • J. i Trenching/Utilities-West Building [Trenchers ; 2 8.00 78• 0.50 J. ; Construction-West Building +Air Compressors ; 10 8.001 78• 0.48 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Cranes ; 0 7.00 231' 0.29 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Forklifts ; 0 8.00 89• 0.20 • J. ; Construction-West Building :Generator Sets ; 2 8.001 84• 0.74 I J. Construction-West Building [Rough Terrain Forklifts ; 2 8.001 100• 0.40 • J. i Construction-West Building +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ; 0 7.00 97• 0.37 J. ; Construction-West Building :Welders ; 0 8.00 46• 0.45 • J. ; Paving-East Building :Pavers ; 2 8.001 130• 0.42 • J. i Paving-East Building [Paving Equipment ; 2 8.001 132• 0.36 • J. ; Paving-East Building :Rollers ; 2 8.00 80• 0.38 Architectural Coatings East Bldg +Air Compressors ; 4 6.00 78• 0.48 Paving-West Building [Pavers ; 2 8.00 130• 0.42 J. ; Paving-West Building :Paving Equipment ; 2 8.001 132• 0.36 • J. ; Paving-West Building :Rollers ; 2 8.00 80• 0.38 * r Architectural Coatings-West Bldg :Air Compressors 4• 6.00• 78• 0.48 Trips and VMT Page 1803 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Demolition 6; 40.00. 0.00: 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00:LD_Mix IHDT_Mix HHDT 1 Site Preparation 6; 40.00i O.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix !HDT_Mix THHDT I 1 Trenching/Utilites- 6; 40.00. 0.00i 2,880.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix THHDT Cnc.+Q..;Irl;n., , I I , I Construction 'East i 15: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix THHDT Q..;Irl;nn , I I , I Grading 6; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix iHDT_Mix THHDT , I 1 , Trenching/Utilities- 6; 40.00. 0.00i 1,440.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix HDT_Mix THHDT \4/nn+Q..;1,1 n., , I I , I i Construction-West i 14: 200.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix HDT_Mix T ' HHDT Q..;Irl;nn , I I , I Paving-East Building ; 6; 40.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix HDT_Mix THHDT Architectural Coatings y 4; 40.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix i HDT_Mix THHDT Cnc.+Qlrl., , I I , I I Paving-West Building 6: 40.00. 40.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix i HDT_Mix THHDT i r + i * + Architectural Coatings : 4' 40.00' 0.00' 0.00' 14.70: 6.90' 20.00'LD_Mix •HDT_Mix 'HHDT \i I,-..+Old, 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I Off-Road •I 2.5643 1 25.0937 1 17.7597 I 0.0351 1 I 1.2177 1 1.2177 1 I 1.1441 : 1.1441 • 1 3,369.785 13,369.785 1 0.7586 1 i 3,388.750 9 I I I I I I I I 1 2 I 2 I I I 3 9I I I I I I I I I ; 1 I I I Total I 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 2 2 3 Page 1804 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 7 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I Hauling .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I 1 9 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I MI Vendor 9 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 'I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 'I I I 1 I I I I I , I 1 I I 1 MI J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J T I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I Worker 9 0.1907 1 0.1188 1 1.2457 1 3.8000e- 1 0.4471 1 2.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 I 2.5600e- 0.1211 • 1 378.4584 1 378.4584 1 9.8100e- I : 378.7036 '1 I I 003 003 1 I I 003 . 1 I 1 003 I I 'I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 , I 1 1 1 1 Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I Off-Road �� 2.5643 1 25.0937 1 17.7597 1 0.0351 1 1 1.2177 1 1.2177 1 1 1.1441 1.1441 � 0.0000 3,369.785 1 3,369.785 1 0.7586 1 i 3,388.750 I I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 3 'I I I I I 1 I I I , I I I I 1 Total 2.5643 25.0937 17.7597 0.0351 1.2177 1.2177 1.1441 1.1441 0.0000 3,369.785 3,369.785 0.7586 3,388.750 2 2 3 Page 1805 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.2 Demolition - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 9I I I • I I I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 378.4584 1 378.4584 : 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 '� 003 003 003 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 3.1815 0.0000 3.1815 i 0.3435 0.0000 0.3435 •• i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t '� Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 i 16.4479 : 0.0427 i : 1.1687 : 1.1687 i : 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 14,137.845:4,137.845: 1.3383 i 14,171.301 '� I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I u 8 '� I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Page 1806 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 378.4584 1 378.4584 : 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 '� 003 003 003 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 3.1815 0.0000 3.1815 i 0.3435 0.0000 0.3435 •• i : 0.0000 : i i 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J J J J t Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 i 16.4479 0.0427 i 1.1687 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 1 0.0000 i 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 i 1 4,171.301 9 I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I u 8 '1 I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 3.1815 1.1687 4.3502 0.3435 1.0752 1.4187 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Page 1807 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 378.4584 1 378.4584 : 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 '� 003 003 003 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 2.7847 : 0.0000 1 2.7847 i 0.3111 : 0.0000 ; 0.3111 •• i : 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 i 15.3206 0.0307 i 1.1084 1 1.1084 i 1.0197 1 1.0197 • i 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I I I I I • 8 I 8 I I u 8 '� I I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 8 8 8 Page 1808 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I Hauling 41.6919 I 60.3531 I 11.2441 0.2153 I 5.0399 0.1562 I 5.1961 I 1.3817 0.1495 1.5312 • 122,878.90 I I I 22,878.90 1.3510 I i 22,912.68 9 I I I .I ' I I I I I I I ' • I 67 ' 67 I I 1 19 ,I J J J J J J 7 I J J J t I I I I I I I I I Vendor .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I i 0.0000 'I • I I I I I I I I • I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I I �1 J J J J J J J J 7 I I I II I J J J t Worker 9 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 � 378.4584 1378.4584 I9.8100e- I i 378.7036 I' 003 I II 003 I I 003 I ' . I 003 I II I I Total 1.8826 60.4719 12.4898 0.2191 5.4870 0.1590 5.6460 1.5003 0.1520 1.6524 • 23,257.36 23,257.36 1.3608 23,291.38 51 51 55 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 Dust -I 2.7847 I 0.0000 I 2.7847 I 0.3111 I 0.0000 ; 0.3111 ••; I 0.0000 I I 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I• 'I J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 2.0787 22.2277 I 15.3206 I 0.0307 I 1.1084 1 1.1084 I I 1.0197 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217 12,973.217 1 0.9616 I i 2,997.257 'I I I I I I I I I • I 8 I 8 I I I 8 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I I Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 2.7847 1.1084 3.8931 0.3111 1.0197 1.3308 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 8 8 8 Page 1809 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.4 Trenching/Utilites - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I Hauling 41.6919 I 60.3531 I 11.2441 0.2153 I 5.0399 0.1562 I 5.1961 I 1.3817 0.1495 1.5312 • 122,878.90 I I I 22,878.90 1.3510 I i 22,912.68 9 I I I .I ' I I I I I I I ' • I 67 ' 67 I I 1 19 ,I J J J J J J 7 I J J J t I I I I I I I I I Vendor .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I i 0.0000 'I • I I I I I I I I • I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I I �1 J J J J J J J J 7 I I I II I I J J J t Worker .1 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 � 378.4584 1378.4584 I9.8100e- I i 378.7036 I' 003 I II 003 I I 003 I ' . I 003 I II I I Total 1.8826 60.4719 12.4898 0.2191 5.4870 0.1590 5.6460 1.5003 0.1520 1.6524 . 23,257.36 23,257.36 1.3608 23,291.38 51 51 55 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road - 3.9372 I 31.2581 I 37.7657 I 0.0647 I I 1.6386 I 1.6386 I I 1.6182 1.6182 • 16,155.195 I 6,155.195 I 0.6776 I i 6,172.134 'I I I I I I I I I I 3 I 3 I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , . I I I I I Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 3 3 1 Page 1810 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.1024 i 3.6155 i 0.7882 0.0103 i 0.2562 5.7200e- 0.2619 i 0.0738 5.4700e- 0.0792 i 1,085.025 1,085.025 0.0771 i i 1,086.952 9 I 1 1 003 1 I : 003 1 0 0 I i 4 '� 1 1 1 . 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.9535 i 0.5937 i 6.2284 0.0190 i 2.2355 0.0139 2.2494 i 0.5929 0.0128 0.6057 i 1,892.292 1 1,892.292 0.0490 i i 1,893.518 9I I I I I I • 0 I 0 I I I 0 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.0559 4.2092 7.0166 0.0293 2.4917 0.0196 2.5113 0.6666 0.0183 0.6849 2,977.317 2,977.317 0.1261 2,980.470 0 0 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 3.9372 i 31.2581 i 37.7657 : 0.0647 i : 1.6386 : 1.6386 i : 1.6182 : 1.6182 •. 0.0000 i 6,155.195:6,155.195: 0.6776 i i 6,172.134 '1 I I I I 1 I I I I 3 I 3 I I 1 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 3.9372 31.2581 37.7657 0.0647 1.6386 1.6386 1.6182 1.6182 0.0000 6,155.195 6,155.195 0.6776 6,172.134 3 3 1 Page 1811 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.1024 i 3.6155 i 0.7882 0.0103 i 0.2562 5.7200e- 0.2619 i 0.0738 5.4700e- 0.0792 i 1,085.025 1,085.025 0.0771 i i 1,086.952 9 I 1 1 003 1 I : 003 1 0 0 I i 4 '� 1 1 1 . 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.9535 i 0.5937 i 6.2284 0.0190 i 2.2355 0.0139 2.2494 i 0.5929 0.0128 0.6057 i 1,892.292 1 1,892.292 0.0490 i i 1,893.518 9I I I I I I • 0 I 0 I I I 0 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 1.0559 4.2092 7.0166 0.0293 2.4917 0.0196 2.5113 0.6666 0.0183 0.6849 2,977.317 2,977.317 0.1261 2,980.470 0 0 4 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road .1 3.6862 i 28.9417 i 37.6666 0.0647 i 1.4301 1.4301 i 1.4118 1.4118 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 i i 6,171.618 I I I I 1 I I I 5 5 I I I 2 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 5 5 2 Page 1812 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 91 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0772 i 2.7944 i 0.6705 0.0100 i 0.2562 2.8300e- 0.2590 i 0.0738 2.7100e- 0.0765 i 1,055.593 1,055.593 0.0618 i i 1,057.137 9 003 I I 003 I 4 I 4 I I i 7 '� I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker •1 0.8947 i 0.5344 i 5.7101 0.0183 i 2.2355 0.0135 2.2490 i 0.5929 0.0124 0.6053 i 1,821.266 1 1,821.266 0.0440 i i 1,822.365 9I I I I 8 I 8 I I 7 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 2 2 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 3.6862 i 28.9417 I 37.6666 i 0.0647 i ; 1.4301 I 1.4301 ; i 1.4118 1.4118 •• 0.0000 i 6,155.283 i 6,155.283; 0.6534 i i 6,171.618 y I I I I I I I I I 5 I 5 I I I 2 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I Total 3.6862 28.9417 37.6666 0.0647 1.4301 1.4301 1.4118 1.4118 0.0000 6,155.283 6,155.283 0.6534 6,171.618 5 5 2 Page 1813 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.5 Construction - East Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 91 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0772 i 2.7944 i 0.6705 0.0100 i 0.2562 2.8300e- 0.2590 i 0.0738 2.7100e- 0.0765 i 1,055.593 1,055.593 0.0618 i i 1,057.137 9 003 I I 003 I 4 I 4 I I i 7 '� I I • I 1 I I 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J Worker •1 0.8947 i 0.5344 i 5.7101 0.0183 i 2.2355 0.0135 2.2490 i 0.5929 0.0124 0.6053 i 1,821.266 1 1,821.266 0.0440 i i 1,822.365 9I I I I • 8 I 8 I I 7 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 2 2 3 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 2.3861 i 0.0000 2.3861 0.2577 i 0.0000 0.2577 • i 1 0.0000 : i i 0.0000 I I I I I I • I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J I J t '� Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 i 16.4479 : 0.0427 i 1 1.1687 : 1.1687 i : 1.0752 : 1.0752 • 1 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1 1.3383 i i 4,171.301 '� I I 1 1 I I • 2 I 2 I I u 8 '1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Page 1814 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Grading - 2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 9I I I • I I I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 378.4584 : 378.4584 : 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 '� 003 003 003 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i i 2.3861 i 0.0000 2.3861 0.2577 i 0.0000 0.2577 • i 1 0.0000 : i i 0.0000 I I I I I I • I I I I 1 •� I I I I I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J J I J t Off-Road 9 2.5506 i 29.6686 i 16.4479 0.0427 1 1.1687 1.1687 i 1.0752 1.0752 1 0.0000 i 4,137.845 1 4,137.845 1.3383 i 1 4,171.301 9 I I 1 1 I I • 2 I 2 I I u 8 '1 I I 1 1 I I • I I I I Total 2.5506 29.6686 16.4479 0.0427 2.3861 1.1687 3.5548 0.2577 1.0752 1.3328 0.0000 4,137.845 4,137.845 1.3383 4,171.301 2 2 8 Page 1815 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.6 Grading - 2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 9I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I 9I I I • I I I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 378.4584 1 378.4584 : 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 '� 003 003 003 I I 003 I 1 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- 0.4499 0.1186 2.5600e- 0.1211 378.4584 378.4584 9.8100e- 378.7036 003 003 003 003 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •i i i i 1.3924 : 0.0000 : 1.3924 i 0.1556 : 0.0000 : 0.1556 •• i : 0.0000 : i 1 0.0000 I I I 1 1 I I ; I I I I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J m J I J t Off-Road 9 2.0787 i 22.2277 i 15.3206 0.0307 i 1.1084 1.1084 i 1.0197 1 1.0197 • i 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 i i 2,997.257 9 I I I 1 I I I • 8 I 8 I I u 8 '� I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 8 8 8 Page 1816 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building -2022 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I I I I I I I Hauling 40.8459 I 30.1766 I 5.6221 0.1077 I 2.5199 0.0781 I 2.5981 I 0.6909 0.0747 0.7656 • 111,439.45 I I I 11,439.45 0.6755 I i 11,456.34 9 I I I .I ' I I I I I I I ' • I 34 I 34 I I 1 10 ,I J J J J J J 7 I J J J t I I I I I I I I I Vendor .1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I I i 0.0000 'I • I I I I I I I I • I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I I �1 J J J J J J J J 7 I I I II I J J J t Worker .1 0.1907 0.1188 1.2457 3.8000e- 0.4471 2.7800e- I 0.4499 I 0.1186 12.5600e- 0.1211 � 378.4584 1378.4584 I9.8100e- I i 378.7036 I' 003 I II 003 I I 003 I ' . I 003 I II I I Total 1.0366 30.2953 6.8677 0.1115 2.9671 0.0809 3.0479 0.8094 0.0773 0.8867 • 11,817.91 11,817.91 0.6853 11,835.04 18 18 46 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day I 1 1 Dust •I 1.3924 I 0.0000 I 1.3924 I 0.1556 I 0.0000 : 0.1556 ••; I 0.0000 I I 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I 1 I II I I I• 'I J J J J J J m J I J t Off-Road 9 2.0787 22.2277 I 15.3206 I 0.0307 I 1.1084 I 1.1084 I I 1.0197 1.0197 • 0.0000 2,973.217 1 2,973.217 1 0.9616 I i 2,997.257 'I I I I I I I I I • I 8 I 8 I I I 8 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I I Total 2.0787 22.2277 15.3206 0.0307 1.3924 1.1084 2.5008 0.1556 1.0197 1.1753 0.0000 2,973.217 2,973.217 0.9616 2,997.257 8 8 8 Page 1817 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.7 Trenching/Utilities -West Building -2022 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.8459 i 30.1766 i 5.6221 0.1077 i 2.5199 0.0781 2.5981 i 0.6909 0.0747 0.7656 i 11,439.45 1 11,439.45 0.6755 i i 11,456.34 9 I I •� I ' I ' ' I ' • I 34 I 34 I I 1 10 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I 1 I I 9I I I • I I I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker •1 0.1907 i 0.1188 i 1.2457 3.8000e- i 0.4471 2.7800e- : 0.4499 i 0.1186 : 2.5600e- 0.1211 � i 378.4584 : 378.4584 : 9.8100e- i i 378.7036 9 I I I 003 I I 003 1 I 1 003 I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I 1 I I 1 Total 1.0366 30.2953 6.8677 0.1115 2.9671 0.0809 3.0479 0.8094 0.0773 0.8867 11,817.91 11,817.91 0.6853 11,835.04 18 18 46 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road •i 3.3787 i 25.6032 i 36.0615 0.0597 i 1.2907 1.2907 i 1.2835 1.2835 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 i i 5,678.697 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 8 '1 I I I I 1 1 I I I 7 I 7 I I Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 7 7 8 Page 1818 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 91 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0772 i 2.7944 i 0.6705 0.0100 i 0.2562 2.8300e- 0.2590 i 0.0738 2.7100e- 0.0765 i 1,055.593 1,055.593 0.0618 i i 1,057.137 9 003 I : 003 1 4 4 I i 7 '� 1 1 . I I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.8947 i 0.5344 i 5.7101 0.0183 i 2.2355 0.0135 2.2490 i 0.5929 0.0124 0.6053 i 1,821.266 1,821.266 0.0440 i i 1,822.365 9I I I I 8 I 8 I I , 7 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 2 2 3 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 3.3787 i 25.6032 i 36.0615 : 0.0597 i : 1.2907 : 1.2907 i : 1.2835 : 1.2835 •• 0.0000 i 5,666.316: 5,666.316: 0.4953 i i 5,678.697 y I I I I 1 1 I I I 7 I 7 I I I 8 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I Total 3.3787 25.6032 36.0615 0.0597 1.2907 1.2907 1.2835 1.2835 0.0000 5,666.316 5,666.316 0.4953 5,678.697 7 7 8 Page 1819 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2023 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I i 0.0000 '� I I • I I I I '� I I • I I I ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0772 i 2.7944 i 0.6705 0.0100 i 0.2562 2.8300e- 0.2590 i 0.0738 2.7100e- 0.0765 i 1,055.593 1,055.593 0.0618 i i 1,057.137 9 003 9003 4 4 i 7 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J .7 J J J Worker 9 0.8947 i 0.5344 i 5.7101 0.0183 i 2.2355 0.0135 2.2490 i 0.5929 0.0124 0.6053 i 1,821.266 1,821.266 0.0440 i i 1,822.365 9 I I I I Ig I g I I i 7 I I I I I I I I Total 0.9719 3.3287 6.3806 0.0283 2.4917 0.0163 2.5080 0.6666 0.0151 0.6818 2,876.860 2,876.860 0.1057 2,879.503 2 2 3 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 4 3.1851 i 24.0403 i 36.0409 i 0.0597 i 1.1159 i 1.1159 i 1.1093 1.1093 • i 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 i i 5,678.122 9i I I I I i I I 2 i 2 i I i 5 I I I I I I I Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 2 2 5 Page 1820 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0761 i 2.8087 i 0.6463 : 9.9900e- i 0.2562 : 2.8200e- : 0.2590 i 0.0738 : 2.6900e- 0.0765 � i 1,054.662: 1,054.662: 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 '� 003 003 003 3 I 3 I 1 1 3 '� 1 1 . I I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.8442 i 0.4839 i 5.3154 0.0177 i 2.2355 0.0134 2.2489 i 0.5929 0.0123 0.6052 i 1,762.225 1 1,762.225 0.0401 i i 1,763.228 9I I I I I I 0 I 0 I I I 6 9I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.9203 3.2927 5.9617 0.0277 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6816 2,816.887 2,816.887 0.1019 2,819.434 2 2 9 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 3.1851 i 24.0403 i 36.0409 : 0.0597 i : 1.1159 : 1.1159 i : 1.1093 : 1.1093 •• 0.0000 i 5,666.182: 5,666.182 : 0.4776 i i 5,678.122 9 I I I I 1 1 I I 2 I 2 I I 5 9I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 Total 3.1851 24.0403 36.0409 0.0597 1.1159 1.1159 1.1093 1.1093 0.0000 5,666.182 5,666.182 0.4776 5,678.122 2 2 5 Page 1821 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.8 Construction -West Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 9 . 1 I I ,i i J . J Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 i 0.6463 ; 9.9900e- i 0.2562 ; 2.8200e- ; 0.2590 i 0.0738 ; 2.6900e- 0.0765 . i 1,054.662; 1,054.662; 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 9003 003 003 1 3 I 3 I I 1 3 91 1 . I I 1 NI V Worker 9 0.8442 i 0.4839 i 5.3154 ; 0.0177 i 2.2355 ; 0.0134 ; 2.2489 i 0.5929 ; 0.0123 0.6052 . i 1,762.225; 1,762.225; 0.0401 i i 1,763.228 9 • I 0 I 0 I I I 6 '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.9203 3.2927 5.9617 0.0277 2.4917 0.0162 2.5079 0.6666 0.0150 0.6816 2,816.887 2,816.887 0.1019 2,819.434 2 2 9 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 14.6258 i 0.0228 i 0.4685 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I 2 I 2 I I 1 3 '1 1 1 I I I I• '1 - J J 1 1. Paving 9i 0.2358 i 1 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; i 0.0000 : 0.0000 � i 0.0000 ; 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I I I I I 1 Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 Page 1822 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ' • 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I , I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0761 i 2.8087 i 0.6463 : 9.9900e- i 0.2562 : 2.8200e- : 0.2590 i 0.0738 : 2.6900e- 0.0765 � i 1,054.662: 1,054.662: 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 '� 003 003 003 3 I 3 I 1 1 3 '� 1 1 . I I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 : 3.5300e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 352.4450 1 352.4450 : 8.0300e- i : 352.6457 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I , I I 1 Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 003 003 2 2 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 : 0.0228 i : 0.4685 : 0.4685 i : 0.4310 : 0.4310 •. 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547: 0.7140 i 12,225.396 .1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 2 I 2 I I 1 3 '1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I '1 J J J J J J J J - J J J t Paving 9 0.2358 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 Page 1823 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.9 Paving - East Building - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '9 I I I 1 1 I I • I 1 I I 9 . 1 I I ,i i J . J Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 i 0.6463 : 9.9900e- i 0.2562 : 2.8200e- : 0.2590 i 0.0738 : 2.6900e- 0.0765 . i 1,054.662: 1,054.662: 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 9003 003 003 1 3 I 3 I I 1 3 91 1 . I I 1 NI V Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 : 3.5300e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 . i 352.4450 1 352.4450 : 8.0300e- i : 352.6457 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I , I I Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 003 003 2 2 0 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating •i 88.2672 1 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 • i i 0.0000 1 1 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 9 I I I I 1 1 I I . I 1 I 1 m J I J 1. 'l I Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 i 7.2405 i 0.0119 i : 0.2437 1 0.2437 : i 0.2437 : 0.2437 • i 1,125.792 i 1,125.792: 0.0634 : 11,127.377 '� I I I I I I I I . I 2 I 2 I I : 0 '� I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 2 2 0 Page 1824 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I I I I • I , I I 9I I I I I I . I I I I �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J t Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 : 3.5300e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 352.4450 1 352.4450 : 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I , I I 1 Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i : 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 .1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 •� I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 i 7.2405 0.0119 i 0.2437 1 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 0.0000 i 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I I 0 9 I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 2 2 0 Page 1825 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 36 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.10 Architectural Coatings East Bldg -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I I I •I I I • I 1 I I ,i J . J Vendor .1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 . i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I • I , I I 9I I I I I • I I I ,i J . J Worker .1 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 : 3.5300e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 . i 352.4450 1 352.4450 : 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I , I I Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 14.6258 i 0.0228 i 0.4685 0.4685 i i 0.4310 0.4310 • 2,207.547 i 2,207.547 0.7140 i i 2,225.396 9 I I I • 2 I 2 I I 1 3 '1 1 1 I I I I• '1 - J J 1 1. Paving 9i 0.2358 i 1 1 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; i 0.0000 : 0.0000 � i 0.0000 ; 1 i 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I 1 Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 Page 1826 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 37 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling i• 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ' • 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I , I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0761 i 2.8087 i 0.6463 : 9.9900e- i 0.2562 : 2.8200e- : 0.2590 i 0.0738 : 2.6900e- 0.0765 � i 1,054.662: 1,054.662: 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 '� 003 003 003 3 I 3 I 1 1 3 '� 1 1 . I I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 : 3.5300e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 352.4450 1 352.4450 : 8.0300e- i : 352.6457 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I . I , I I 1 Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 003 003 2 2 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 9 0.9882 i 9.5246 i 14.6258 : 0.0228 i : 0.4685 : 0.4685 i : 0.4310 : 0.4310 •. 0.0000 2,207.547:2,207.547: 0.7140 i 12,225.396 '� 1 1 I I 2 I 2 I I 3 '1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I '1 J J J J J J J J - J J J t Paving 9 0.2358 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 9I I I I I I I I I 1 Total 1.2240 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140 2,225.396 2 2 3 Page 1827 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 38 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.11 Paving -West Building -2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 I I 1 1 I I • I 1 I I 1 9I I 1 I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0761 i 2.8087 i 0.6463 : 9.9900e- i 0.2562 : 2.8200e- : 0.2590 i 0.0738 : 2.6900e- 0.0765 � i 1,054.662: 1,054.662: 0.0618 i i 1,056.206 '� 003 003 003 3 I 3 I 1 1 3 '� 1 1 . I I 1 1 �� J J J J J J J J 7 J J J Worker •1 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 : 3.5300e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 352.4450 1 352.4450 : 8.0300e- i : 352.6457 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I , I I 1 Total 0.2449 2.9055 1.7094 0.0135 0.7033 5.5000e- 0.7088 0.1923 5.1500e- 0.1975 1,407.107 1,407.107 0.0698 1,408.852 003 003 2 2 0 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating •i 88.2672 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i i 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 I I I I I I I • I 1 I 1 •� I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 J J J J J J J J m J I J t Off-Road •i 0.7231 i 4.8752 i 7.2405 i 0.0119 i : 0.2437 i 0.2437 : i 0.2437 : 0.2437 • i 1,125.792 i 1,125.792: 0.0634 : i 1,127.377 '� I I I I I I I • I 2 I 2 I I 0 '1 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 2 2 0 Page 1828 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 39 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 '� I I I I I I • I I I I 1 '� I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,�1 J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor 9 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I �� J J J J J J J J • 7 I J J J t Worker 9 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 1 3.5300e- i 0.4471 : 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 352.4450 1 352.4450 : 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9 I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I I I 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Archit.Coating 9 88.2672 i i i : 0.0000 1 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• i : 0.0000 1 i 1 0.0000 ;� I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 •� I I 1 1 I I • I I I I 1 J J J J J J J J . J J J t Off-Road 9 0.7231 i 4.8752 i 7.2405 0.0119 i 0.2437 1 0.2437 i 0.2437 0.2437 • 0.0000 i 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 i i 1,127.377 9I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I 0 9I I I I I I • I I I I 1 Total 88.9903 4.8752 7.2405 0.0119 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.2437 0.0000 1,125.792 1,125.792 0.0634 1,127.377 2 2 0 Page 1829 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 40 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 3.12 Architectural Coatings -West Bldg - 2024 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx I CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 4 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •• i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9I I • I I I I 1 9I I I • I 1 I I 1 ,� J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 9 • I I I • I I I I i �� J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J t Worker •1 0.1688 i 0.0968 i 1.0631 3.5300e- i 0.4471 2.6800e- : 0.4498 i 0.1186 : 2.4600e- 0.1210 � i 352.4450 1 352.4450 1 8.0300e- i i 352.6457 9 I I I 003 I I 003 1 I 1 003 I I ' 003 I i '� I I I I I I I I • I 1 I I 1 Total 0.1688 0.0968 1.0631 3.5300e- 0.4471 2.6800e- 0.4498 0.1186 2.4600e- 0.1210 352.4450 352.4450 8.0300e- 352.6457 003 003 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Page 1830 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 41 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2 5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 2.4971 : 16.5393 : 32.0045 i 0.1477 i 12.7073 : 0.0917 i 12.7990 i 3.3998 i 0.0855 � 3.4853 : i 15,111.76: 15,111.76: 0.6865 i i 15,128.93 •� . 81 I 81 I I 1 14 9I I I I I I I I I I I I. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. } 1. 1. r e } 1. r Unmitigated • 2.4971 • 16.5393 • 32.0045 • 0.1477 • 12.7073 • 0.0917 • 12.7990 • 3.3998 • 0.0855 • 3.4853 • 15,111.76• 15,111.76• 0.6865 • • 15,128.93 81 81 14 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Apartments Mid Rise 2 1,419.32 ; 1,419.32 1419.32 5,631,294 5,631,294 City Park ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Condo/Townhouse + 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 General Office Building ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 T Y Parking Lot ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 Recreational Swimming Pool ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 Strip Mall ; 83.03 ; 83.03 83.03 • 329,439 • 329,439 Total I 1,502.35 I 1,502.35 1,502.35 I 5,960,733 I 5,960,733 4.3 Trip Type Information Page 1831 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O16.3.2 Page 42 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.90 10.90 1 10.90 40.00 20.00 40.00 100 0 0 City Park 16.60 I 8.40 T 6.90 33.00 i 48.00 19.00 66 • 28 6 Condo/Townhouse 14.70 5.90 ? 8.70 ,i 40.00 I 20.00 • 40.00 • 100 • 0 r 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 16.60 I 8.40 T 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 • 0 0 General Office Building 16.60 ▪ 8.40 ? 6.90 i 33.00 48.00 T 19.00 • 77 • 19 r 4 Parking Lot 16.60 I 8.40 T 6.90 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0 • 0 0 Recreational Swimming Pool 16.60 ▪ 8.40 ? 6.90 i 33.00 48.00 T 19.00 • 52 • 39 r 9 4 Strip Mall 10.90 • 10.90 10.90 • 16.60 • 64.40 ? 19.00 • 100 • 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use I LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS I MCY SBUS I MH Apartments Mid Rise • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800 i 0.111169 i 0.014289 i 0.004794 i 0.018611 i 0.065078 i 0.001365 i 0.001491: 0.005725 i 0.000799: 0.000830 i- ---i i i i i i i i i t + City Park • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799' 0.000830 i- ---i i i i t i i i i t + Condo/Townhouse • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799' 0.000830 i- ---t t t i t i i t i t + Enclosed Parking with Elevator • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 i- ---t t t t t t i t i t + General Office Building • 0.558745v 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 i- ---i i i t t i i t i t + Parking Lot • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799' 0.000830 i- ---i i i i i i i i i t + Recreational Swimming Pool • 0.558745' 0.035303: 0.181800: 0.111169: 0.014289: 0.004794: 0.018611: 0.065078: 0.001365: 0.001491: 0.005725: 0.000799: 0.000830 vI I I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. Strip Mall • 0.558745• 0.035303' 0.181800' 0.111169' 0.014289' 0.004794' 0.018611' 0.065078' 0.001365' 0.001491' 0.005725' 0.000799' 0.000830 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Page 1832 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 43 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.1146 0.9797 : 0.4196 : 6.2500e- i i 0.0792 i 0.0792 i i 0.0792 0.0792 • i 1,250.200: 1,250.200: 0.0240 � 0.0229 i 1,257.629 Mitigated ;i 003 • i 1 I 1 I I 1 4 I I I I I I:I. } } } } } } } } r } } } r NaturalGas • 0.1146 • 0.9797 • 0.4196 • 6.2500e- • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 0.0792 • 0.0792 • • 1,250.200• 1,250.200• 0.0240 • 0.0229 • 1,257.629 Unmitigated 003 1 1 4 Page 1833 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 44 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I Apartments Mid i 10497.7 •i 0.1132 1 0.9674 1 0.4117 1 6.1800e- 1 1 0.0782 1 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 : 1 1,235.025 1 1,235.025 1 0.0237 1 0.0226 i 1,242.364 Rise I .I I 1 1 003 I I I I 1 . I 5 I 5 I I 1 7 1 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I 1 -1 J J J J .1 1 J I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I City Park 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 'I I 1 I I I I I I • I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I I 41 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I Condo/Townhous I 62.0919 •1 6.7000e- 1 5.7200e- I 2.4300e- 1 4.0000e- 1 I 4.6000e- 1 4.6000e- 1 I 4.6000e- ; 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 I 7.3049 1 1.4000e- 1 1.3000e- i 7.3483 e I '1 004 I 003 1 003 I 005 I I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 : 1 I 1 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • I 1 I 004 I 004 41 J J J J J J J J I J J J I I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 I : I I Enclosed Parking 1 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 with Elevator 1 '1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I . I 1 I I 1 1 'I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , , I 1 1 I 1 ?I J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J I I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I General Office i 46.5836 .1 5.0000e- 1 4.5700e- 3.8400e- 1 3.0000e- 1 I 3.5000e- 1 3.5000e- 1 1 3.5000e- ; 3.5000e- • 1 5.4804 I 5.4804 1 1.1000e- 1 1.0000e- i 5.5130 Building i ;' 004 1 003 I 003 1 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 i I I 004 I 004 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I , . I I I 1 I- 9 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J I I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 I : I I Parking Lot 1 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 'I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 'I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I 1 i 41 J J J J J J J J 7 I J J J I I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 I : I I Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 Swimming Pool I 'I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • I I I I 1 41 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J I I : 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I Strip Mall 120.3084 .1 2.2000e- 1 1.9900e- 1.6700e- 1 1.0000e- 1 I 1.5000e- 1 1.5000e- I 1.5000e- 1.5000e- I 1 2.3892 I 2.3892 1 5.0000e- 1 4.0000e- : 2.4034 1 'I 004 I 003 I 003 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 1 1 'I I 1 I I I I I I , I I I I 005 I 005 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 Page 1834 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 45 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I Apartments Mid i 10.4977 •i 0.1132 1 0.9674 1 0.4117 1 6.1800e- 1 1 0.0782 1 0.0782 1 1 0.0782 0.0782 : 1 1,235.025 1 1,235.025 1 0.0237 1 0.0226 i 1,242.364 Rise I .I I 1 1 003 I I I I 1 . 1 5 I 5 I I 1 7 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I I 1 -1 J J J J .1 1 J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I City Park 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 '1 I 1 I I I I I I • I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I , • 1 I I I 1 41 J J J J J J J J 1 J J J 1 I : 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I Condo/Townhous i 0.06209199 6.7000e- 1 5.7200e- 2.4300e- 1 4.0000e- 1 I 4.6000e- 1 4.6000e- 1 I 4.6000e- 4.6000e- I 1 7.3049 I 7.3049 1 1.4000e- 1 1.3000e- i 7.3483 e I '1 004 I 003 1 003 I 005 I I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 : 1 I 1 1 'I I 1 1 I I I I I , I 1 I I 004 I 004 -1 J J J J V I J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I Enclosed Parking i 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 with Elevator I '1 I 1 I I I I I I . I I I I I 1 '1 I I I I I I 1 1 , , I 1 1 I 1 r ?I J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I General Office 10.0465836.1 5.0000e- 1 4.5700e- I 3.8400e- 1 3.0000e- 1 I 3.5000e- 1 3.5000e- 1 1 3.5000e- 3.5000e- 1 1 5.4804 I 5.4804 1 1.1000e- 1 1.0000e- i 5.5130 Building i ;: 004 003 1 003 1 005 1 I 004 I 004 I 1 004 004 i 1 1 004 1 004 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 , . 1 I 1 1 i 9 J J J J J J J J I J J J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I Parking Lot 1 0 •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 '1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 '1 I I I I I I I I , I 1 I I I 1 i 41 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I Recreational I 0 .1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 Swimming Pool I 'I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 . 1 I 1 1 I 1 '1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 , • 1 I 1 I 1 h 41 J J J J J J J J 7 1 J J J 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I Strip Mall i 0.0203084.1 2.2000e- 1 1.9900e- I 1.6700e- 1 1.0000e- 1 I 1.5000e- 1 1.5000e- I 1.5000e- 1.5000e- I 1 2.3892 I 2.3892 1 5.0000e- 1 4.0000e- 1 2.4034 1 '1 004 1 003 I 003 005 1 I 004 I 004 I I 004 004 . 1 I I 005 1 005 1 1 '1 I 1 I I I I I I , • 1 I 1 1 1 Total 0.1146 0.9797 0.4196 6.2600e- 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 0.0792 1,250.200 1,250.200 0.0240 0.0229 1,257.629 003 1 1 4 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Page 1835 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 46 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 7.0358 i 4.5605 i 23.3317 : 0.0287 : i 0.4677 i 0.4677 i i 0.4677 � 0.4677 : 0.0000 i 5,544.624: 5,544.624 i 0.1429 : 0.1009 i 5,578.277 9I I I I I I I I • 2 I 2 I I 1 1 '1 I I I I I I I I I I :1- } } } } } } } } r 1. 1. } Unmitigated • 7.0358 • 4.5605 • 23.3317 • 0.0287 • • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • 0.4677 • 0.0000 5,544.624• 5,544.624• 0.1429 • 0.1009 •5,578.277 2 2 1 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.4837 i 1 i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating :: I I ,i I I I I I I 1 I • I I 1 • J J Consumer 9 5.3977 i 1 i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 Products :: I '� I I I I I I I I • I I 1 Hearth 9 0.5047 i 4.3129 : 1.8353 i 0.0275 i : 0.3487 i 0.3487 : i 0.3487 0.3487 • 0.0000 5,505.882: 5,505.882 i 0.1055 : 0.1009 15,538.601 'I I I I I I I I I 4 1 4 I I I 1 'I I I I I I I 1 I • I I 1 •iI J J J I 1 ' Landscaping 9 0.6498 i 0.2475 1 21.4964 i 1.1400e- i 1 0.1190 i 0.1190 : i 0.1190 0.1190 • 38.7418 : 38.7418 i 0.0374 : I 39.6760 •I I 1 I 003 I I I I I • I I I I Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 Page 1836 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 47 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory lb/day lb/day 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Architectural •i 0.4837 i 1 i i : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : i 0.0000 0.0000 • i : 0.0000 i i i 0.0000 Coating •': .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I , I 1 I I ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J Consumer •1 5.3977 i 1 i i 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 i 0.0000 0.0000 . i : 0.0000 i i I 0.0000 Products •: I I I I I I I I . I I I I I '� I I I I I I I I . I I I I ,� J J J J J 7 I J J J Hearth •1 0.5047 i 4.3129 : 1.8353 i 0.0275 i : 0.3487 i 0.3487 : i 0.3487 0.3487 : 0.0000 i 5,505.882: 5,505.882 i 0.1055 1 0.1009 :5,538.601 •1 I I I I I I I I • I 4 I 4 I I i 1 •I I I I I I I 1 I . I I I I . J J J J J J J J I J J J Landscaping .1 0.6498 i 0.2475 : 21.4964 i 1.1400e- i : 0.1190 i 0.1190 : i 0.1190 0.1190 • i 38.7418 : 38.7418 i 0.0374 1 i 39.6760 •1 I I I 003 I I I I I . I I I 9I I I I I I I I . I I I 1 Total 7.0358 4.5605 23.3317 0.0287 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.4678 0.0000 5,544.624 5,544.624 0.1429 0.1009 5,578.277 2 2 1 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad IEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Page 1837 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 48 of 48 Date: 9/30/2021 10:32 AM Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project- San Bernardino-South Coast County, Winter Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type I Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation Page 1838 Attachment B Construction Operation 2022 Total Emission Rate Annual Emissions(tons/year) 1 0.13151 Total DPM(Ibs) 799.2306849 Annual Emissions(tons/year) I 0.04231 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 0.720547945 Total DPM(g) 362531.0387 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 0.235068493 Construction Duration(days) 302 Total Construction Days 735 Emission Rate(g/s) I 0.001234111 Total DPM(Ibs) 217.6054795 Emission Rate(g/s) 1 0.0057087911 Release Height(meters) 3 Total DPM(g) 98705.84548 Release Height(meters) 3 Total Acreage 5.2 Start Date 1 3/5/20221 Total Acreage I 5.21 Max Horizontal(meters) 205.15 End Date 1/1/2023 Max Horizontal(meters) 205.15 Min Horizontal(meters) 102.58 Construction Days 302 Min Horizontal(meters) 102.58 Initial Vertical Dimension(meters) 1.5 2023 Initial Vertical Dimension(meters) 1.5 Setting Urban Annual Emissions(tons/year) I 0.2851 Setting Urban Population 176,379 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 1.561643836 Population 176,379 Total Pounds of DPM Construction Duration(days) 365 Start Date 3/5/2022 Total DPM(Ibs) 85.8 Total DPM(Ibs) 570 End Date 3/9/2024 Total DPM(g) 258552 Total Construction Days 735 Start Date 1/1/2023 Total Years of Construction 2.01 End Date 1/1/2024 Total Years of Operation 27.99 Construction Days 365 2024 Annual Emissions(tons/year) 1 0.03121 Daily Emissions(lbs/day) 0.170958904 Construction Duration(days) 68 Total DPM(Ibs) 11.62520548 Total DPM(g) 5273.193205 Start Date 1/1/2024 End Date 1 3/9/20241 Construction Days 68 Page 1839 Attachment C Start date and time 09/28/21 09:59:53 AERSCREEN 21112 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project AERSCREEN Construction Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project AERSCREEN Construction DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** Emission Rate: 0.571E-02 g/s 0.453E-01 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 205.15 meters 673.06 feet Area Source Width: 102.58 meters 336.55 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 176379 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** Page1840 No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Page 1841 Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*) : not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2021.09.28 AltaCuvee AERSCREEN Construction.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics. . . Page 1842 Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 09/28/21 10:01:53 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 Page1843 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 1844 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Page1845 Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 Page1846 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 Page1847 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 Page1848 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Page1849 Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 Page1850 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 Page 1851 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page 1852 *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 09/28/21 10:02:04 REFINE started 09/28/21 10:02:04 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page1853 *** NONE *** REFINE ended 09/28/21 10:02:05 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 09/28/21 10:02:07 Page 1854 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.69621E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76131E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81622E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86250E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91010E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.91461E+01 103.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71251E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50963E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41465E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34837E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29835E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25963E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22878E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20380E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18332E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16593E+01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15140E+01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13882E+01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12804E+01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11859E+01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11024E+01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10291E+01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96428E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90598E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85308E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80534E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1855 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 A1taCuvee AERSCREEN Construction max conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76221E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72306E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68740E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65438E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62404E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59613E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57038E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54648E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52418E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50344E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48412E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46607E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44906E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43305E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41800E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40385E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39057E+00 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37798E+00 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36608E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35485E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34421E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33412E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32454E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31543E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30676E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29846E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29054E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1856 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 A1taCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43.56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28299E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27577E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26885E+00 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26220E+00 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25584E+00 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24973E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24388E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23826E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23287E+00 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22770E+00 1525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22272E+00 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21792E+00 1575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21330E+00 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20884E+00 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20455E+00 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20041E+00 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19641E+00 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19255E+00 1725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18882E+00 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18522E+00 1775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18173E+00 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17836E+00 1825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17510E+00 1850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17194E+00 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17018E+00 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16716E+00 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16423E+00 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1857 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_A1taCuvee AERSCREEN_Construction max_conc distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16139E+00 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15863E+00 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15596E+00 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15336E+00 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15083E+00 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14838E+00 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14599E+00 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14367E+00 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14141E+00 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13922E+00 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13708E+00 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13500E+00 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13297E+00 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13099E+00 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12907E+00 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12719E+00 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12536E+00 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12358E+00 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12184E+00 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12014E+00 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11848E+00 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11686E+00 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11528E+00 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11373E+00 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11222E+00 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11075E+00 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10931E+00 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1858 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 A1taCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43.56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10790E+00 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10652E+00 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10517E+00 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10385E+00 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10256E+00 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10130E+00 2775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10006E+00 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98853E-01 2825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97668E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96507E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95370E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94256E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93165E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92095E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91046E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90017E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89009E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88020E-01 3074.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87050E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86098E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85164E-01 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84248E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83348E-01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82465E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81598E-01 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80747E-01 3275.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79911E-01 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1859 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_A1taCuvee AERSCREEN_Construction max_conc distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79090E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78283E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77491E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76712E-01 3400.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75947E-01 3425.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75195E-01 3450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74455E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73728E-01 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73014E-01 3525.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72311E-01 3550.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71620E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70940E-01 3600.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70272E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69614E-01 3650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68967E-01 3675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68330E-01 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67703E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67086E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66479E-01 3775.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65881E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65293E-01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64714E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64143E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63581E-01 3900.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63028E-01 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62482E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61946E-01 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1860 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 A1taCuvee AERSCREEN Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61416E-01 4000.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60895E-01 4025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60381E-01 4050.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59875E-01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59376E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58885E-01 4125.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58400E-01 4150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57922E-01 4175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57451E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56986E-01 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56528E-01 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56076E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55631E-01 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55191E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54758E-01 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54330E-01 4375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53908E-01 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53492E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53082E-01 4450.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52676E-01 4475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52276E-01 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51882E-01 4525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51492E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51107E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50728E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50353E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49983E-01 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1861 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_A1taCuvee AERSCREEN_Construction max_conc distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49618E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49257E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48901E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48549E-01 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48202E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47859E-01 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47520E-01 4825.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47185E-01 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46855E-01 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46528E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46205E-01 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45887E-01 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45571E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45260E-01 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 1862 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_A1taCuvee AERSCREEN_Construction max_conc distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:43:56 AM] Start date and time 09/28/21 10:03:51 AERSCREEN 21112 Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project AERSCREEN Operations DATA ENTRY VALIDATION METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** Emission Rate: 0.123E-02 g/s 0.979E-02 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 205.15 meters 673.06 feet Area Source Width: 102.58 meters 336.55 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 176379 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** No Building Downwash Parameters Page1863 ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K -9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Page 1864 Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*) : not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2021.09.28_AltaCuvee_AERSCREEN_Operations.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics. . . Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Page1865 Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 09/28/21 10:05:47 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Page1866 Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 Page1867 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 Page1868 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** Page1869 *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page1870 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 Page 1871 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 Page 1872 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 Page1873 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 1874 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page1875 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 09/28/21 10:05:57 REFINE started 09/28/21 10:05:57 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page1876 REFINE ended 09/28/21 10:05:59 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 09/28/21 10:06:00 Page1877 Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.15048E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16455E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17642E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18642E+01 75.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19671E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.19769E+01 103.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15400E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11015E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89625E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75298E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64487E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56118E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49449E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44051E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39624E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35865E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32724E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30006E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27675E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25632E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23828E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22244E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20842E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19582E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18439E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17407E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1878 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 A1taCuvee AERSCREEN Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44.23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16475E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15629E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14858E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14144E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13488E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12885E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12329E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11812E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11330E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10882E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10464E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10074E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97063E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93600E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90348E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87290E-01 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84419E-01 1025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81698E-01 1050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79126E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76698E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74399E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72218E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70147E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68179E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66305E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64510E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62799E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1879 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 A1taCuvee AERSCREEN Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11.44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61166E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59606E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58111E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56674E-01 1375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55298E-01 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53978E-01 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52713E-01 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51499E-01 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50334E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49216E-01 1525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48139E-01 1550.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47101E-01 1575.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46103E-01 1600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45140E-01 1625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44212E-01 1650.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43317E-01 1675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42454E-01 1700.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41619E-01 1725.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40813E-01 1750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40034E-01 1775.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39281E-01 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38552E-01 1825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37846E-01 1850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37163E-01 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36784E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36131E-01 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35498E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1880 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28 A1taCuvee AERSCREEN Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11.44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34884E-01 1975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34288E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33709E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33147E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32601E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32071E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31555E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31054E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30566E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30091E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29629E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29179E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28741E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28314E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27897E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27492E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27096E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26710E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26334E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25967E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25608E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25258E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24917E-01 2525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24583E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24256E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23938E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23626E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 Page 1881 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2021.09.28_AltaCuvee AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[9/30/2021 11:44:23 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23322E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23024E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22732E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22447E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22168E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21895E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21628E-01 2800.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21366E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.2111