Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix A - Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis PROJECT OVERVIEW This technical memorandum presents an analysis of the air quality, energy, and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts for the Project (proposed Project) located southeast of the intersection of Conifer Court and Village Drive in the City of Fontana. The 13.16-acre Project site is comprised of two parcels identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0237-411-28 (Parcel 1, 5.67 acres) and -29 (Parcel 2, 7.49 acres). The Project Applicant is proposing to construct and operate a self-storage facility on Parcel 1. The self-storage facility would be 136,352 square feet (SF). Site improvements would include landscaping, community trail, sidewalks, utility connections, implementation of stormwater facilities, and pavement of parking areas and driveways. Additionally, as part of the Project, the Applicant would construct a 20-foot-wide public trail on the City-owned Parcel 2. Construction of the proposed Project would be completed in two phases. Phase 1 would include construction of the self-storage buildings, public trail, and water quality basin. Phase 2 would include the construction of the RV storage area and the remaining landscaping. The proposed Project site is shown in Figure 1, Project Site Plan, included at the end of this document. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C-G) and is zoned Southridge Village Specific Plan (SVSP). Within the SVSP, the site is identified as Planning Area 66B. The SVSP designates Planning Area 66B as Mini-storage overlay which allows for self-storage uses but does not establish minimum or maximum development allowances. The SVSP Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified in 1981, analyzed the development of 8,800 residential dwelling units. Since then, 18 amendments to the SVSP have been processed. To support the CEQA document, this report analyzes the proposed Project’s construction and operational impacts to air quality (emission of criteria pollutants), energy usage, and GHG using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod Version 2022.1) land use emission model and Emission Factor (EMFAC Version 2021) model. Although the Project is proposed to be constructed in two phases, for purposes of the model, the proposed Project was assumed to be fully constructed in one phase. This is because emissions impacts are derived by the concentration of daily emissions, thus analyzing the construction of the Project as a whole would provide the most conservative analysis. The CalEEMod default construction schedule was assumed for vertical construction. Site preparation and grading phases were extended to account for potential rock blasting and rock crushing activities. Table 1, Construction Schedule, shows the construction schedule, which would last approximately 17 months. To: City of Fontana Planning Department From: Tiffany Dang, Alex J. Garber, EPD Solutions, Inc. Date: 2/28/2025 Re: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Conifer Self Storage Project, EPD Project Number 24-066 Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 2 Table 1: Construction Schedule SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GHG IMPACTS Air Quality The proposed Project’s maximum daily emissions (regional and local) for construction and operation would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) regional thresholds of significance. In addition, the proposed Project is consistent with the uses allowed under the Mini-storage overlay. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the emissions previously disclosed in the SVSP Final EIR. All construction activities would comply with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including Rule 402, Rule 403, and Rule 1113: • Rule 402, Public Nuisance: Prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that cause injury, nuisance, or annoyance to the public or damage to property. • Rule 403, Fugitive Dust: Aims to minimize fugitive particulate matter dust emissions during construction activities. • Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings: Allows only low-volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints to be used. The construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any of the six criteria pollutants. Projects that do not exceed the regional thresholds are assumed to not have a significant impact on both a project level and cumulative level. The proposed Project aligns with SCAQMD’S 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), reflecting adherence to regional air quality management goals and standards. Furthermore, odors produced by construction and operation of the proposed Project would be minimal and comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Therefore, the proposed Project would have less- than-significant air quality impacts. Energy The proposed Project’s energy consumption for construction activities related to redevelopment of the site for new self-storage uses would be conditioned to require compliance with existing fuel standards, machinery efficiency standards, and California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements that limit idling of trucks. The Project would comply with the State CEQA Guidelines for energy consumption thresholds (a), concerning wasteful, inefficient and overconsumption of energy in projects, and (b), project design impeding renewable energy development growth, respectively: (a) Construction activities related to the proposed Project and the associated infrastructure are not expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis than any other development projects in Southern California. Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days Site Preparation 4/1/2025 4/28/2025 20 Demolition (Rock blasting/crushing) 4/29/2025 7/7/2025 50 Grading 7/8/2025 8/4/2025 20 Building Construction 8/5/2025 6/22/2026 230 Paving 6/23/2026 7/20/2026 20 Architectural Coating 7/21/2026 8/17/2026 20 Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A). Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 3 (b) The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards, comply with all applicable City energy codes. Therefore, the Project would not inhibit the use of and would allow for future flexibility relating to renewable energy. Through compliance with existing standards, the Project would not result in a fuel demand on a per- development basis that is greater than other development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the state. As previously stated, the proposed Project is consistent with the Mini-storage overlay, and is not anticipated to exceed energy consumption levels previously disclosed in the SVSP Final EIR. Therefore, the construction and operation of the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use, and no mitigation would be required. GHG Emissions The proposed Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions would total 550 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). The Project’s total GHG emissions are below the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Additionally, the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s GHG reduction plans and policies within the General Plan and the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on GHG emissions. Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 4 AIR QUALITY Methodology and Model Inputs CalEEMod Inputs To calculate the construction and operational impacts, the air quality emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. The passenger vehicles were analyzed using the CalEEMod default trip distance information.1 The following non-default assumptions and adjustments were used in the CalEEMod emission model for this analysis: • Land Use: The lot acreage was adjusted to match the site plan provided by the Project Applicant. • Construction: While there is no proposed hardscape demolition, demolition was used to account for rock blasting/crushing. The demolition phase was moved accordingly to follow the side preparation phase. • Construction: It was assumed that all equipment would be used for 8 hours per workday. Tractors/loaders/backhoes were replaced with crawler tractors in the site preparation and grading phases to accurately measure acres disturbed. Crushing/processing equipment was added to the demolition phase to account for rock crushing. • Construction: One diesel-powered crushing/processing equipment was assumed. Emission factors were derived from OFFROAD2021 2025 values, within the San Bernardino South Coast sub-area. • Construction: Based on information provided by the Project Applicant, the grading phase is expected to result in approximately a net export of 3,633 cubic yards of soil. • Operations: Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday trip rates were adjusted to match the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, auto trip rates for Mini-Warehousing (100s Storage Units) (ITE Land Use Code 151). Rock Blasting The Project would have the potential to process approximately 19,000 tons of rock for reuse as fill. A maximum of one blast per day has been assumed for this analysis. Emissions from the detonation of explosives were calculated using emissions factors from the US EPA AP-42: Compilation of Air Emissions Factors from Stationary Sources (AP-42). Emissions factors for CO, NOx, and SO2 were referenced from Section 13.3, Explosives Detonation 2. This analysis assumes a maximum of 1-ton of ANFO per day, which would result in 67 pounds/day of CO, 17 pounds/day of NOx, and 2 pounds/day of SO2. Emissions factors for PM10 and PM2.5 were referenced from Section 11.9, Western Surface Coal Mining 3. The area subject to rock blasting would be approximately 4.84 acres, which would result in approximately 2.6 pounds/day of PM10 and 0.1 pounds/day of PM2.5. Estimated emissions for each particulate were added to the grading phase, shown below in Table 2. Rock Crushing This analysis assumes all crushing would occur during the grading phase, which had been extended to 70 days. Fugitive dust emissions comprised of PM10 and PM2.5 were calculated using emission factors provided 1 EPD utilized the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) default data provided in CalEEMod, as it provides more accurate trip length data than the region-wide CSTDM trip length data. 2 US EPA. Revised 1995. AP-42, Section 13.3 Explosives Detonation. Referenced February 2025, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/13.3_explosives_detonation.pdf 3 US EPA. 1998. AP-42, Section 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining. Referenced February 2025, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/c11s09.pdf Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 5 by AP-42, Section 11.19, Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing 4. Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, it was assumed that crushing operations would utilize watering for dust suppression. Thus, controlled rates were used to estimate emissions for the proposed Project. Approximately 271 tons of rock would be crushed per day (19,000 tons/70 days), resulting in 1.3 pounds/day of PM10 and 0.1 pounds/day of PM2.5. Estimated emissions were added to the grading phase, shown below in Table 2. Regional Emissions The SCAQMD has adopted maximum daily emission thresholds (pounds/day) for the criteria pollutants during construction and operation of a project.5 While incremental regional air quality impacts of an individual project are generally very small and difficult to measure, SCAQMD’s regional maximum emission thresholds set standards to reduce the burden of SCAQMD to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards. The regional thresholds apply to the criteria pollutants mentioned in Table 2 and Table 3 along with the CalEEMod Project emissions. These emission thresholds include the Project emissions generated both from onsite sources (such as off-road construction equipment and fugitive dust) and off-site sources (vehicle travel arriving to and leaving from the site). As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, the Project would generate emissions below the SCAQMD thresholds, and therefore result in less-than-significant regional air quality impacts. Table 2: Regional Construction Emission Estimates 4 US EPA. 1998. AP-42, Section 11.19.2 Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing. Referenced February 2025, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/c11s1902.pdf 5 SCAQMD. March 2023. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Referenced at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25. Construction Activity Maximum Daily Regional Emissions (pounds/day) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 2025 Site Prep 4.1 37.5 33.8 0.1 7.8 4.5 Grading 2.4 22.6 21.8 <0.01 4.0 2.2 Demolition (Rock blasting/crushing) 0.3 18.7 70.2 2.0 4.5 0.3 Building Construction 1.5 12.4 19.0 <0.1 1.4 0.7 Maximum Daily Emissions 4.1 37.5 70.2 2.0 7.8 4.5 2026 Building Construction 1.4 11.7 18.6 <0.1 1.4 0.6 Paving 1.2 7.1 9.9 <0.1 0.3 0.3 Architectural Coating 66.4 1.2 2.3 <0.1 0.2 0.1 Maximum Daily Emissions 66.4 11.7 18.6 <0.1 1.4 0.6 Maximum Daily Emission 2025-2026 66.4 37.5 70.2 2.0 7.8 4.5 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A). Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 6 Table 3: Regional Operational Emission Estimates Local Emissions Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) were also adopted by the SCAQMD to evaluate projects which would not exceed the regional emission significance thresholds but may have the potential to exceed state and national air quality standards within a project’s vicinity. These thresholds set the maximum rates of daily construction or operational emissions from a project site that would not exceed a national or State ambient air quality standard.6 The differences between regional thresholds and LSTs are as follows: 1. Regional thresholds include all sources of project construction and operational emissions generated from on-site and off-site emission sources whereas the LSTs only consider the emissions generated from on-site emission sources. 2. LSTs only apply to carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), while regional thresholds include both reactive organic gases (ROG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 3. Regional thresholds apply to emission sources located anywhere within the SCAQMD whereas the LSTs are location dependent and rely on the size of the project and emission location relative to the nearest sensitive receptor. A sensitive receptor is defined as an individual who is most susceptible to negative health effects when exposed to air pollutants and includes children, the elderly, and adults with chronic health issues. Locations for such receptors include residences, schools, elderly care centers, and hospitals. SCAQMD provides screening tables (Appendix C of the SCAQMD 2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology) for projects that disturb less than or equal to 5 acres in a day.7 These tables were created to easily determine if the daily emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 from a project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. The thresholds are determined by: 6 SCAQMD. 2008: Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Referenced at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst- methodology-document.pdf 7 SCAQMD. 2008: Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology Appendix C. Referenced at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/appendix-c-mass- rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Operational Activity Maximum Daily Regional Emissions (pounds/day) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Mobile 0.5 0.5 4.6 <0.1 1.0 0.3 Area 4.3 <0.1 5.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Energy <0.1 0.7 0.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Project Operational Emissions 4.8 1.3 11.1 <0.1 1.1 0.3 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A). Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 7 • Source receptor area (SRA), which is the geographic area within the SCAQMD that can act as both a source of emissions and a receptor of emission impacts (the Project is located within SRA 34, Central San Bernardino Valley); • Size of grading disturbance (construction)/size of the project (operation); and • Distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Table 4, Construction Equipment Modeled in CalEEMod and Acres Disturbed per Day, shows the amount of grading that would occur during the site preparation and grading phases. As can be seen in Table 4, the phase with the most ground disturbance would be the grading phase, with a maximum of 3.5 acres of ground disturbance per day. Therefore, the SCAQMD thresholds for a 2-acre and 5-acre site were interpolated to calculate thresholds for a 3.5-acre site. Distance to the nearest sensitive receptor also determines the emission thresholds. The sensitive receptors closest to the Project site include single-family residential homes about 22 meters (75 feet) north of the Project’s northern boundary and single-family residential homes about 70 meters (230 feet) west of the Project’s western boundary. Therefore, the construction and operation emission thresholds for 25 meters were used. Table 5, Localized Construction Emission Estimates, show the thresholds and estimated maximum daily construction emissions for the proposed Project. As shown in Table 5, the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD LST thresholds and would therefore have a less-than-significant localized construction air quality impact. Table 4: Construction Equipment Modeled in CalEEMod and Acres Disturbed per Day Activity Equipment Type Equipment Quantity Operating Hours per Day Acres Disturbed per piece of Equipment per Day1 Acres Disturbed per Day Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 0.5 1.5 Crawler Tractors 4 8 0.5 2.0 Total Acres Disturbed Per Day 3.5 Grading Excavators 2 8 0 0 Graders 1 8 0.5 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 0.5 0.5 Crawler Tractors 3 8 0.5 1.5 Total Acres Disturbed Per Day 2.5 Maximum Acres Disturbed Per Day 3.5 Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A). 1Source: SCAQMD. n.d. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Referenced at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 8 Table 5: Localized Construction Emission Estimates According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs apply to project-related stationary mobile sources. Projects that involve mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at a site, such as transfer facilities or warehousing and distribution buildings, have the potential to exceed the operational LSTs. The Project would operate as a self-storage facility, which do not typically involve diesel vehicles regularly idling or queueing for long periods. Therefore, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions or idling diesel-powered vehicles, impacts related to operational LSTs are presumed to be less than significant. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook provides the following two criteria to determine whether a project would be consistent or in conflict with the AQMP: 1. The Project would not generate population and employment growth that would be inconsistent with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)’s growth forecasts. 2. The Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to the SCAG’s growth forecasts, and associated assumptions included in the AQMP. The future air quality levels projected in the AQMP are based on SCAG’s growth projections, which are based, in part, on the general plans of cities located within the SCAG region. Therefore, if the level of housing and employment growth related to the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable Construction Activity Maximum Daily Regional Emissions (pounds/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 2025 Site Prep 37.5 32.4 7.6 4.5 Demolition (Rock blasting/crushing) 18.7 70.2 4.5 0.3 Grading 20.6 19.6 3.4 2.0 Building Construction 11.3 28.3 0.9 0.9 Maximum Daily Emissions 37.5 70.2 7.6 4.5 2026 Building Construction 10.7 14.1 0.4 0.4 Paving 7.1 9.9 0.3 0.3 Architectural Coating 1.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 Maximum Daily Emissions 10.7 14.1 0.4 0.4 Maximum Daily Emission 2025-2026 37.5 70.2 7.6 4.5 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds1 220 1,359 10.5 6 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Notes: NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter 1Significance thresholds obtained by interpolating values for 2 acres and 5 acres. Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A). Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 9 assumptions used in the development of the AQMP, the Project would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial and is zoned as Southridge Village Specific Plan. The site is identified as Planning Area 66B within the Specific Plan. This area has a Mini-storage overlay which allows for self-storage uses. It is anticipated that the employment base for both the construction and operational phases of the proposed Project would come from the existing population in the region. The Project would result in an incremental increase in employment in the City. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ two individuals onsite at any given time. The onsite employees’ functions are limited to business transactions, site maintenance, and equipment operations/maintenance. This number of new employees can be accommodated by the local labor market. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not exceed the growth assumptions for the SCAG region. As a result, the proposed Project would be consistent with Criterion 1. Consistency Criterion No. 2 refers to the California Ambient Air Quality Standards. An impact would occur if the long-term emissions associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds for operation-phase emissions. As presented in Table 3, operation of the proposed Project would result in emissions that do not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with Criterion No. 2. As the Project would be consistent with both Criterion No. 1 and 2, impacts related to consistency with the AQMP would be less than significant. Odors Odors would be produced during the construction of the proposed Project due to the operation of heavy- duty off-road equipment. The primary odor emitted would be diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the vendor trucks and heavy-duty off-road equipment. This odor may be noticeable by nearby residents; however, these odors would be expected and not necessarily objectionable. These odors would also dissipate quickly and would be temporary. Therefore, due to the nature of the odor produced during construction as temporary and non-objectionable to a substantial number of people, the odor impact from construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant. For operational odor emissions, SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook describes odor complaints associated with the following land uses: • Agricultural uses • Chemical plants • Composting activities • Dairies • Fiberglass molding • Food processing plants • Landfills • Refineries • Wastewater treatment plants The Project does not propose any of the above land uses and is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 10 Thus, impacts associated with odor produced by operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. SVSP Final EIR The SVSP designates the proposed Project site as Mini-storage overlay but does not establish minimum or maximum development allowances. As such, there are no prior quantitative operational assumptions available for comparison. This qualitative assessment is provided in the absence of specific quantitative benchmarks for modeling purposes. In comparison, the operational fuel consumption and mobile source emission rates of the proposed Project would be less intensive than general commercial uses, since self- storage uses do not generate a proportionate number of employees per square foot. The proposed Project aligns with the intended land use under the Specific Plan and is consistent with a previously approved Specific Plan Amendment that modified the site’s designation. Therefore, the proposed Project is expected to generate a comparable or lower level of operational intensity. Conclusion As discussed above, the proposed Project is consistent with the Mini-storage overlay analyzed in the SVSP Final EIR and is anticipated to generate comparable or lower levels of emissions than general commercial uses. The proposed Project's maximum daily regional and localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional thresholds of significance, as detailed in Tables 2 through 5. All construction and operational activities would comply with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, as described above, and would not exceed any criteria pollutant thresholds. Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with SCAQMD’S 2022 AQMP, reflecting adherence to regional air quality management goals and standards. Finally, odors produced during construction would be temporary and not significantly objectionable, and during operation, the proposed Project involves land uses that typically do not generate significant odor complaints and would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant air quality impacts without requiring mitigation. Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 11 ENERGY The State CEQA Guidelines do not have specific thresholds for energy consumption. Rather, the question in Appendix G: VI Energy (a) asks, “[Would the proposed Project] Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?” and in (b) asks “[Would the project] Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?”8 Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if: (a) The project design and/or location encourages wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, especially fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum, as well as the use of fuel by vehicles anticipated to travel to and from the project. (b) The project design impedes the growth of future renewable energy developments. Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company would provide electricity and natural gas respectively for construction and operation of the proposed Project. The following assumptions were used to calculate the energy (electricity, natural gas, and petroleum) consumption of the proposed Project: • Construction equipment fuel consumption was derived from CARB OffRoad2021 emission model • Fuel Consumption from vehicle travel was derived from CARB EMFAC2021 emission model • Electrical and natural gas usage was derived from the CalEEMod model Version 2022.1 Construction Electricity and Natural Gas Usage: Due to the Project size and the fact that construction is temporary, the electricity used during construction of the proposed Project would be substantially less than that required for Project operation and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption. The electric power used would be for as- necessary lighting and electronic equipment such as computers inside temporary construction trailers. Natural gas is not anticipated to be needed for construction activities. Any consumption of natural gas would be minor and negligible in comparison to the usage during the operation of the proposed Project. Petroleum Fuel Usage: The equipment associated with construction activities (off-road/heavy duty vehicles) would rely on diesel fuel as would vendor and haul trucks involved in delivering building materials and removing soil material from the Project site. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration of construction, and for a conservative analysis, it is assumed that construction workers would travel in gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. Table 6 lists the total fuel consumption and horsepower-hour data contained within the CARB OffRoad2021 emission model for specific types of diesel construction equipment. It should be noted that the total fuel consumption is a conservative analysis and would likely overstate the amount of fuel usage, as specific construction equipment is not expected to operate during the entire duration of the construction activity (i.e., crane). Table 7 summarizes the Project’s construction vehicle fuel usage based on vehicle miles traveled and fuel usage factors contained in the CARB EMFAC2021. The trips included are worker vehicles, vendor vehicles, and haul vehicles. Table 8 shows the overall fuel consumption for Project construction. On-road construction vehicles from the proposed Project would account for 0.005 percent and 0.002 percent of diesel and gasoline consumption within San Bernardino County in 2025, respectively. Off- 8 California Energy Commission 2023. CEQA Statutes and Guidelines Attachment 10 Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form. Referenced at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/11_Attachment_10_- _Appendix_G_from_CEQA_Handbook_ada.docx Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 12 road construction equipment from the proposed Project would account for 0.2 percent of diesel consumption within San Bernardino County in 2025. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in fuel consumption. The proposed Project would have less-than-significant construction energy impacts. Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 13 Table 6: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage Activity Equipment Number Hours per day Horse- power Load Factor Days of Construction Total Horsepower- hours Fuel Rate (gal/hp-hr) Fuel Use (gallons) Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 20 70,464 0.047454783 3,344 Crawler Tractors 4 8 84 0.37 20 19,891 0.05048826 1,004 Demolition Crushing/Proc. Equipment 1 8 200 0.60 50 48,000 0.050641575 2,431 Grading Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 20 2,189 0.05121509 112 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 20 9,709 0.05153929 500 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 20 23,488 0.04745478 1,115 Crawler Tractors 3 8 87 0.43 20 17,957 0.08075336 1,450 Building Cranes 1 8 367 0.29 230 195,831 0.05312078 10,403 Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 230 90,528 0.03216647 2,912 Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 230 19,062 0.08075336 1,539 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 230 171,562 0.05158182 8,849 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 230 38,088 0.05116533 1,949 Paving Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 20 10,886 0.05259167 573 Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 20 10,253 0.05312078 545 Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 20 4,378 0.030188493 132 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 20 2,842 0.030188493 86 Total 36,944 Source: Fuel Calculation Sheets (see Attachment B) Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 14 Table 7: Estimated Project Vehicle Fuel Usage Source: Fuel Calculation Sheets (see Attachment B). Table 8: Total Construction Fuel Usage Source Diesel Fuel (Gallons) Gasoline Fuel (Gallons) Proposed Project Construction Vehicles 13,492 19,662 Proposed Project Off-Road Construction Equipment 36,944 0 Proposed Project Total Consumption 50,436 19,662 San Bernardino County On-Road Vehicles 281,399,849 828,612,797 San Bernardino County Off-Road Construction Equipment 19,143,316 459,014 On-Road Project Percentage (%) 0.005 0.002 Off-Road Project Percentage (%) 0.2 - Source: Fuel Calculation Sheets (see Attachment B). Operation The operation of the proposed Project would consume electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. The energy consumption can be found in Table 9, Project Annual Operational Energy Requirements, below. Electricity and natural gas consumption can be found in the CalEEMod Output Sheets attached (Attachment A). The gasoline consumption rates utilize the same assumptions that were used for the worker vehicles. The most recent data available for electricity and natural gas usage from the California Energy Commission is for 2022. The proposed Project would result in a 0.006 percent and 0.009 percent increase in non- residential electricity and natural gas consumption, respectively. Using 2025 estimated rates as the baseline year, the proposed Project would account for 0.002 percent of gasoline consumption in San Bernardino County. The proposed Project would remain consistent with that of similar sized projects and would thus not constitute an inefficient use of energy. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant energy impacts without requiring mitigation. Construction Source Total Number of Trips VMT Fuel Rate Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline Fuel Haul Trucks 227 9,083 6.07 1,495 0 Vendor Trucks 5,290 107,916 9.00 11,997 0 Worker Vehicles 14,690 543,530 27.64 0 19,662 Total 13,492 19,662 Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 15 Table 9: Project Annual Operational Energy Requirements Future Renewable Energy Developments The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of proposed Project and comply with all applicable City energy codes. The City’s administration of the CCR Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. As such, the Project would not inhibit the use of and would allow for future flexibility relating to renewable energy. SVSP Final EIR As previously described, there are no quantitative operational assumptions available for comparison due to the lack of established minimum or maximum development allowances for the Mini-storage overlay use within the SVSP. Additionally, specific construction and operation-related energy demands were not calculated un the SVS Final EIR. However, energy demand resulting from operational fuel consumption of the proposed Project would be less intensive than general commercial uses, since self-storage uses do not generate a proportionate number of employees per square foot. Additionally, the SVSP Final EIR identified that all new projects would be consistent with Title 24 standards; however, Title 24 standards have been modified since approval of the EIR (1981) to be more stringent, further reducing energy consumption of proposed land uses. The proposed Project aligns with the intended land use under the Specific Plan and would comply with current Title 24 energy requirements. Therefore, the proposed Project is expected to generate a comparable or lower level of operational energy consumption. Conclusion The Project’s energy consumption for construction activities related to development of the site for self-storage uses would be permitted to require compliance with existing fuel standards, machinery efficiency standards, and CARB requirements that limit idling of trucks. The proposed Project would comply with the State CEQA Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours) Proposed Project 632,860 San Bernardino County (2022)1 10,327,755,820 Project Percent Increase (%) 0.006 Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units) Proposed Project 2,592,144 San Bernardino County (2022)2 29,472,194,710 Project Percent Increase (%) 0.009 Petroleum (Gasoline) Consumption Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel Proposed Project 472,769 17,102 San Bernardino County2 2,167,523,424 828,612,797 Project Percentage (%) - 0.002 Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A). 1Source: California Energy Commission. (n.d.). Electricity Consumption by County. Referenced Jan 2025, from https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 2Source: California Energy Commission. (n.d.) Gas Consumption by County. Referenced Jan 2025, from http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx 3Data compiled from EMFAC2021 Onroad Emissions (see Attachment B). Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 16 Guidelines for energy consumption thresholds (a), concerning wasteful, inefficient and overconsumption of energy in projects, and (b), project design impeding renewable energy development growth, respectively: (a) Construction activities related to the proposed Project and the associated infrastructure are not expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis than any other development projects in Southern California. Also, CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. (b) The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards, comply with all applicable City energy codes. Therefore, the Project would not inhibit the use of and would allow for future flexibility relating to renewable energy. The proposed Project is consistent with the allowed uses under the General Commercial General Plan land use and mini-storage overlay designated by the SVSP. In addition, self-storage uses generate fewer employees per square foot compared to general commercial uses. Therefore, the energy consumed during operation of the proposed Project would be comparable or lower intensity than general commercial uses of similar size. The operation of the Project would also comply with Title 24 as well as all applicable City business and energy codes and ordinances. Through compliance with existing standards, the Project would not result in a fuel demand on a per-development basis that is greater than other development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, the construction and operation of the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use, and no mitigation would be required. Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 17 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Regulatory Background and Thresholds California State Executive Order S-3-05, issued by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2005, established comprehensive GHG reduction targets for the state.9 It mandated reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This Executive Order laid the foundation for subsequent climate change mitigation efforts in California, including the development of various policies and programs aimed at reducing emissions across sectors such as transportation, energy, and industry. The objective of the Executive Order is to contribute to capping worldwide CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, stabilizing global climate change. SCAQMD convened a GHG Emissions CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to help lead agencies determine significance thresholds for GHG emissions when SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The last working group was held in September 2010 (Meeting No. 15) and proposed a tiered approach (Tier 1 to Tier 5), equivalent to the existing consistency determination requirements in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15125(d), or 15152(a).10 This assessment will apply the Tier 3 (Numerical Screening Thresholds) approach. Tier 3 consists of screening values which the lead agency can choose from, but it must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project impact would be less than significant: • Option 1, all land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year • Option 2, based on land use type: o Residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year o Commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year o Mixed-use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year Based on the foregoing guidance, the City of Fontana has elected to rely on compliance with a local air district (SCAQMD) threshold in the determination of significance of Project-related GHG emissions. Specifically, the City of Fontana has selected the interim 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold recommended by SCAQMD staff against which to compare Project-related GHG emissions. The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was proposed by SCAQMD a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal (80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050) as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2024 and for purposes of 9 Executive Department State of California Executive Order S-3-05 https://www.library.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/GovernmentPublications/executive-order-proclamation/5129-5130.pdf 10 SCAQMD. (2010). Minutes of the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. Referenced at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf. Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 18 this analysis. Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction. Project GHG Emissions The Project’s construction GHG emissions are shown in Table 10, Project Construction GHG Emissions, and the overall construction and operational emissions are shown in Table 11, Project Total GHG Emissions, below. These emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod model. The construction emissions are amortized over 30 years and added to the operational GHG emissions 11. As shown in Table 11, the Project’s construction and operation GHG emissions would total 550 MTCO2e per year, below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on GHG emissions. Table 10: Project Construction GHG Emissions Activity Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 2025 298 2026 248 Total Emissions 546 Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 18 Table 11: Project Total GHG Emissions Activity Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) Mobile 173 Area 3 Energy 238 Water 78 Waste 40 Total Project Operation Emissions 532 Project Construction Emissions 18 Total Project Emissions 550 Significance Threshold 3,000 Threshold Exceeded? No Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A). 11 SCAQMD. (2008). Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Referenced at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf. Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Attachment A). Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 19 Project Consistency with the City of Fontana General Plan and 2022 CARB Scoping Plan The City of Fontana has adopted a Climate Action Plan as a part of their General Plan update in 201812. Table 13 provides a consistency summary that outlines the City of Fontana General Plan policies related to reducing GHG emissions. As shown in Table 12, the Project would comply with applicable plans and programs of the Fontana General Plan intended to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Update sets the GHG emission reduction target for 2045 at 85% below 1990 levels, which was codified by SB 32. As seen in Table 13, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. The proposed Project would not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs within the City of Fontana and the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan. Table 12: City of Fontana General Plan Consistency Summary Goals Consistency Community Mobility and Circulation Goal 5: Fontana’s commercial and mixed- use areas include a multi-functional street network that ensures a safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people, goods, and services to support a high quality of life and economic vitality. Consistent. Pedestrian circulation would be provided via sidewalks along Village Drive, which would connect to the Project’s internal sidewalks. The existing sidewalk system within the Project vicinity provides direct connectivity to the adjacent existing residential communities, recreational amenities, and to public transit (i.e., Omnitrans Route 82 which serves Rancho Cucamonga and Sierra Lakes via Jurupa Avenue). The proposed Project would also construct a public trail with connection to Southridge Park. Additionally, the Project recognizes that the City’s Bikeway Master Plan considers the needs of bicycle users and aims to create a complete and safe bicycle network throughout the City. Currently Class III bike lanes are provided along Live Oak Avenue. Infrastructure and Green Systems Goal 7: Fontana is becoming an energy-efficient community. Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed to meet the 2022 Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 building energy requirements, which would minimize the energy utilized through installation of enhanced insulation and use of energy efficient lights and appliances. Sustainability and Resilience Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind, and other energy-conservation strategies are available to city households and businesses. Consistent. Southern California Edison provides electricity to Fontana and is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33% of total procurement by 2020 and to 60% of total procurement by 2030. As such, the proposed Project would not interfere with the implementation of the RPS. 12 Inland Center for Sustainable Development. (2023). Local Climate Change Actions in the Inland Empire Region. Referenced at: https://icsd.ucr.edu/sites/default/files/2023-02/icsd-climate-report-1.pdf Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 20 Goals Consistency Goal 6: Green building techniques are used in new development and retrofits. Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed to meet the 2022 Title 24, Pat 6 and Part 11 building energy requirements, which would minimize the energy utilized through installation of enhanced insulation and use of energy efficient lights and appliances. Source: City of Fontana. (2018). Fontana General Plan Update 2015-2035. Referenced at: https://www.fontanaca.gov/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035 Table 13: 2022 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary Action Consistency GHG Emissions Reductions Relative to the SB 32 Target 40% Below 1990 levels by 2030. Consistent. The Project would comply with the 2022 Title 24, Part 6 building energy requirements along with other local and State initiatives that aim to achieve the 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 goal. Smart Growth/Vehicle Miles Traveled VMT VMT per capita reduced 25% below 2019 levels by 2030, and 30% below 2019 levels by 2045. Consistent. The proposed Project would provide pedestrian trails, bicycle racks, and bicycle parking spaces to encourage alternative modes of transportation. As previously discussed, the Project would be consistent with the growth and land use assumptions in the 2022 Connect SoCal (SCAG, 2020), so the Project would not interfere with the analysis completed for the Connect SoCal report outlining VMT reduction targets and measures. Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV) Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) 100% of LDV sales are ZEV by 2035. Not Applicable. The proposed Project does not propose the sale of vehicles. Truck ZEVs 100% of medium-duty (MDV)/HDC sales are ZEV by 2040 (AB 74 University of California Institute of Transportation Studies [ITS] report). Not Applicable. The proposed Project does not propose the sale of trucks. Aviation 20% of aviation fuel demand is met by electricity (batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045. Sustainable aviation fuel meets most or the rest of the aviation fuel demand that has not already transitioned to hydrogen or batteries. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not utilize aviation fuel. Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 21 Action Consistency Ocean-Going Vessels (OGV) 2020 OGV At-Berth regulation fully implemented, with most OGVs utilizing shore power by 2027. 25% of OGVs utilize hydrogen fuel cell electric technology by 2045. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not utilize any OGVs. Port Operations 100% of cargo handling equipment is zero-emission by 2037. 100% of drayage trucks are zero emission by 2035. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not impact any operations at any ports. Freight and Passenger Rail 100% of passenger and other locomotive sales are ZEV by 2030. 100% of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by 2035. Line haul and passenger rail rely primarily on hydrogen fuel cell technology, and others primarily utilize electricity. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve any freight or passenger rail operations. Oil and Gas Extraction Reduce oil and gas extraction operations in line with petroleum demand by 2045. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve oil and gas extraction operations. Petroleum Refining CCS on majority of operations by 2030, beginning in 2028. Production reduced in line with petroleum demand. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve any petroleum refining. Electricity Generation Sector GHG target of 38 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2030 and 30 MMTCO2e in 2035. Retail sales load coverage13420 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind by 2045. Meet increased demand for electrification without new fossil gas-fired resources. Not Applicable. The Project would not generate electricity. New Residential and Commercial Buildings All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial), contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed statewide by 2030. Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with the 2022 Title 24, Section 6 Building Codes energy requirements, including installing electrical wiring for all built in appliances. Existing Residential Buildings 80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100% of appliance sales are electric by 2035. Appliances are replaced at end of life such that by 2030 there are 3 million all-electric and electric-ready homes—and by 2035, 7 million homes—as well as Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve any existing residential buildings. Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 22 Action Consistency contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed statewide by 2030. Existing Commercial Buildings 80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030, and 100% of appliance sales are electric by 2045. Appliances are replaced at end of life, contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed statewide by 2030. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve any existing commercial buildings. Food Products 7.5% of energy demand electrified directly and/or indirectly by 2030; 75% by 2045. Not Applicable. The Project does not propose cold storage and would not involve mass food production. Construction Equipment 25% of energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75% electrified by 2045. Consistent. The proposed Project would be required to use construction equipment that is registered by CARB and meet CARB’s standards. CARB sets its standards to be in line with the goal of reducing energy demand by 25% in 2030 and 75% in 2045. Chemicals and Allied Products; Pulp and Paper Electrify 0% of boilers by 2030 and 100% of boilers by 2045. Hydrogen for 25% of process heat by 2035 and 100% by 2045. Electrify 100% of other energy demand by 2045. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve the production and/or storage of chemicals and allied products like pulp and paper. Stone, Clay, Glass, and Cement CCS on 40% of operations by 2035 and on all facilities by 2045. Process emissions reduced through alternative materials and CCS. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve the production and/or storage of stone, clay, glass and/or cement. Other Industrial Manufacturing 0% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 50% by 2045. Not Applicable. The Project does not propose any industrial manufacturing uses. Combined Heat and Power Facilities retire by 2040. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve any existing combined heat and power facilities. Agriculture Energy Use 25% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75% by 2045. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve any agricultural uses. Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 23 Action Consistency Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation Biomass supply is used to produce conventional and advanced biofuels, as well as hydrogen. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve any production of biofuels. Low Carbon Fuels for Buildings and Industry In 2030s, biomethane135 blended in pipeline Renewable hydrogen blended in fossil gas pipeline at 7% energy (~20% by volume), ramping up between 2030 and 2040. In 2030s, dedicated hydrogen pipelines constructed to serve certain industrial clusters Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve any production of fuels for buildings and industry. Non-Combustion Methane Emissions Increase landfill and dairy digester methane capture. Some alternative manure management deployed for smaller dairies. Moderate adoption of enteric strategies by 2030. Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills by 2025. Oil and gas fugitive methane emissions reduced 50% by 2030 and further reductions as infrastructure components retire in line with reduced fossil gas demand Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve any production of non-combustion methane emissions or organic waste. High GWP Potential Emissions Low GWP refrigerants introduced as building electrification increases, mitigating HFC emissions. Not Applicable. The Project does not propose cold storage uses. Source: CARB. (2022). California’s 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan Table 2-1: Actions for the Scoping Plan Scenario: AB 32 GHG Inventory Sectors. Referenced at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022- sp.pdf SVSP Final EIR As previously described, there are no quantitative operational assumptions available for comparison due to the lack of established minimum or maximum development allowances for mini-storage uses. In comparison, the operational fuel consumption and mobile source emission rates of the proposed Project would be less intensive than general commercial uses, since self-storage uses do not generate a proportionate number of employees per square foot. The proposed Project aligns with the intended land use under the Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project is expected to generate a comparable or lower level of operational greenhouse gas emissions. Conclusion The Project is consistent with the actions and measures of the City’s General Plan and CARB 2022 Scoping Plan and would not interfere with the policies and goals set within those plans. In addition, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial and SVSP mini- storage overlay designation. While there are no prior quantitative operational assumptions available for comparison, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate comparable or lower levels of emissions than a similar sized general commercial use site, due to fewer mobile sources. In addition, the proposed Project’s Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 24 GHG emissions of 550 MTCO2e per year is below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact related to GHG emissions. Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary Page | 25 Figure 1: Project Site Plan Source: Bucilla Group Architecture, Inc. (2024). Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary 26 | Page ATTACHMENT A: CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 1 / 44 Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated 3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated 3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated 3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 2 / 44 3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated 3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 3 / 44 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 4 / 44 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 5 / 44 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 6 / 44 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 7 / 44 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Construction Start Date 4/1/2025 Operational Year 2026 Lead Agency City of Fontana Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)2.80 Precipitation (days)6.80 Location 34.043181641966314, -117.47975443938253 County San Bernardino-South Coast City Fontana Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 5313 EDFZ 10 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas App Version 2022.1.1.29 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 136 1000sqft 4.46 136,352 58,186 ——— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 8 / 44 Parking Lot 9.00 Space 0.08 0.00 0.00 ——— Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.95 Acre 2.95 0.00 0.00 ——— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.57 Acre 1.81 0.00 53,813 ——— 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Unmit.66.4 37.5 33.8 0.05 1.93 7.82 4.52 5,798 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Unmit.1.48 12.4 17.9 0.03 0.48 1.42 0.67 4,111 Average Daily (Max) ———————— Unmit.4.18 6.93 8.32 0.01 0.31 1.07 0.56 1,797 Annual (Max)———————— Unmit.0.76 1.26 1.52 < 0.005 0.06 0.19 0.10 298 Exceeds (Daily Max) ———————— Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 —150 55.0 — Unmit.No No No No —No No — Exceeds (Average Daily) ———————— Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 —150 55.0 — Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 9 / 44 Unmit.No No No No —No No — 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) ———————— 2025 4.13 37.5 33.8 0.05 1.93 7.82 4.52 5,798 2026 66.4 11.6 18.6 0.03 0.42 1.36 0.61 4,153 Daily - Winter (Max)———————— 2025 1.48 12.4 17.9 0.03 0.48 1.42 0.67 4,111 2026 1.40 11.7 17.6 0.03 0.42 1.36 0.61 4,083 Average Daily ———————— 2025 0.79 6.93 8.32 0.01 0.31 1.07 0.56 1,797 2026 4.18 4.43 6.72 0.01 0.16 0.50 0.23 1,498 Annual ———————— 2025 0.14 1.26 1.52 < 0.005 0.06 0.19 0.10 298 2026 0.76 0.81 1.23 < 0.005 0.03 0.09 0.04 248 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Unmit.4.81 1.22 11.1 0.02 0.07 1.06 0.32 3,364 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Unmit.3.80 1.21 4.39 0.01 0.06 1.05 0.31 3,263 Average Daily (Max) ———————— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 10 / 44 Unmit.4.43 1.21 8.31 0.01 0.07 0.98 0.30 3,211 Annual (Max)———————— Unmit.0.81 0.22 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.05 532 Exceeds (Daily Max) ———————— Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 —150 55.0 — Unmit.No No No No —No No — Exceeds (Average Daily) ———————— Threshold 55.0 55.0 550 150 —150 55.0 — Unmit.No No No No —No No — Exceeds (Annual)———————— Threshold ———————3,000 Unmit.———————No 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Mobile 0.50 0.47 4.56 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.26 1,188 Area 4.27 0.05 5.93 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 24.5 Energy 0.04 0.70 0.58 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.05 1,437 Water ———————473 Waste ———————242 Total 4.81 1.22 11.1 0.02 0.07 1.06 0.32 3,364 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Mobile 0.47 0.51 3.80 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.26 1,111 Area 3.30 ——————— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 11 / 44 Energy 0.04 0.70 0.58 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.05 1,437 Water ———————473 Waste ———————242 Total 3.80 1.21 4.39 0.01 0.06 1.05 0.31 3,263 Average Daily ———————— Mobile 0.43 0.48 3.66 0.01 0.01 0.92 0.24 1,042 Area 3.96 0.03 4.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 16.8 Energy 0.04 0.70 0.58 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.05 1,437 Water ———————473 Waste ———————242 Total 4.43 1.21 8.31 0.01 0.07 0.98 0.30 3,211 Annual ———————— Mobile 0.08 0.09 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 0.04 173 Area 0.72 0.01 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.78 Energy 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 238 Water ———————78.3 Waste ———————40.0 Total 0.81 0.22 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.05 532 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Demolition —————0.00 0.00 — Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 12 / 44 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Average Daily ———————— Demolition —————0.00 0.00 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Demolition —————0.00 0.00 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 35.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Average Daily ———————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ———————— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 13 / 44 Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Off-Road Equipment 4.05 37.5 32.4 0.05 1.93 1.93 1.78 5,547 Dust From Material Movement —————5.66 2.69 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Average Daily ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.22 2.05 1.78 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 0.10 304 Dust From Material Movement —————0.31 0.15 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.04 0.37 0.32 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 50.3 Dust From Material Movement —————0.06 0.03 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Worker 0.08 0.08 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.05 250 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Average Daily ———————— Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 12.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 14 / 44 Annual ———————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.11 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Off-Road Equipment 2.30 20.6 19.6 0.03 1.15 1.15 1.05 3,145 Dust From Material Movement —————2.26 0.94 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Average Daily ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.13 1.13 1.07 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 0.06 172 Dust From Material Movement —————0.12 0.05 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.21 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 28.5 Dust From Material Movement —————0.02 0.01 — Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ———————— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 15 / 44 ————————Daily, Summer (Max) Worker 0.07 0.07 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.05 215 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 1.88 1.06 0.01 0.02 0.44 0.14 1,657 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Average Daily ———————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.11 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 90.7 Annual ———————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.0 3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Off-Road Equipment 1.21 11.3 14.1 0.03 0.47 0.47 0.43 2,639 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Off-Road Equipment 1.21 11.3 14.1 0.03 0.47 0.47 0.43 2,639 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ———————— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 16 / 44 Off-Road Equipment 0.35 3.30 4.12 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.13 770 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.06 0.60 0.75 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 127 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Worker 0.26 0.25 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.18 819 Vendor 0.02 0.77 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.06 724 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Worker 0.25 0.28 3.36 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.18 749 Vendor 0.02 0.80 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.06 722 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ———————— Worker 0.07 0.09 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.05 222 Vendor 0.01 0.23 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 211 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Worker 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 36.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 34.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 17 / 44 Onsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Off-Road Equipment 1.16 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.38 2,639 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Off-Road Equipment 1.16 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.38 2,639 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.39 3.61 4.76 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.13 893 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.07 0.66 0.87 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.02 148 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Worker 0.25 0.23 4.12 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.18 802 Vendor 0.01 0.73 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.06 712 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Worker 0.23 0.25 3.11 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.18 734 Vendor 0.01 0.76 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.06 711 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily ———————— Worker 0.08 0.09 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.06 252 Vendor < 0.005 0.26 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 241 Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 18 / 44 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Worker 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 41.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 39.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.29 1,516 Paving 0.40 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Average Daily ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 83.1 Paving 0.02 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.8 Paving < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 19 / 44 Worker 0.06 0.06 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.05 210 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Average Daily ———————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 10.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.77 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Onsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.16 1.14 1.51 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.03 179 Architectural Coatings 66.2 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Average Daily ———————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.79 Architectural Coatings 3.62 ——————— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 20 / 44 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.62 Architectural Coatings 0.66 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ———————— Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Worker 0.05 0.05 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.04 160 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Average Daily ———————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 8.16 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ———————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.35 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 21 / 44 Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.50 0.47 4.56 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.26 1,188 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.50 0.47 4.56 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.26 1,188 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.47 0.51 3.80 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.26 1,111 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.47 0.51 3.80 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.26 1,111 Annual ———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.08 0.09 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 0.04 173 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.08 0.09 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 0.04 173 4.2. Energy Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 22 / 44 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail ———————601 Parking Lot ———————2.95 Other Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Total ———————604 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail ———————601 Parking Lot ———————2.95 Other Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Total ———————604 Annual ———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail ———————99.5 Parking Lot ———————0.49 Other Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Total ———————100.0 Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 23 / 44 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.04 0.70 0.58 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.05 833 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.04 0.70 0.58 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.05 833 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.04 0.70 0.58 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.05 833 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.04 0.70 0.58 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 0.05 833 Annual ———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 138 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 138 Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 24 / 44 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Consumer Products 2.93 ——————— Architectural Coatings 0.36 ——————— Landscape Equipment 0.97 0.05 5.93 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 24.5 Total 4.27 0.05 5.93 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 24.5 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Consumer Products 2.93 ——————— Architectural Coatings 0.36 ——————— Total 3.30 ——————— Annual ———————— Consumer Products 0.54 ——————— Architectural Coatings 0.07 ——————— Landscape Equipment 0.12 0.01 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.78 Total 0.72 0.01 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.78 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 25 / 44 Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail ———————469 Parking Lot ———————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————4.38 Total ———————473 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail ———————469 Parking Lot ———————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————4.38 Total ———————473 Annual ———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail ———————77.6 Parking Lot ———————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.72 Total ———————78.3 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 26 / 44 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail ———————242 Parking Lot ———————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Total ———————242 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail ———————242 Parking Lot ———————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Total ———————242 Annual ———————— Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail ———————40.0 Parking Lot ———————0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————0.00 Total ———————40.0 Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 27 / 44 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Total ———————— Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Total ———————— Annual ———————— Total ———————— 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Total ———————— Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Total ———————— Annual ———————— Total ———————— 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 28 / 44 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Total ———————— Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Total ———————— Annual ———————— Total ———————— 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Total ———————— Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Total ———————— Annual ———————— Total ———————— 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 29 / 44 Total ———————— Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Total ———————— Annual ———————— Total ———————— 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Total ———————— Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Total ———————— Annual ———————— Total ———————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10T PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ———————— Avoided ———————— Subtotal ———————— Sequestered ———————— Subtotal ———————— Removed ———————— Subtotal ———————— ————————— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 30 / 44 Daily, Winter (Max)———————— Avoided ———————— Subtotal ———————— Sequestered ———————— Subtotal ———————— Removed ———————— Subtotal ———————— ————————— Annual ———————— Avoided ———————— Subtotal ———————— Sequestered ———————— Subtotal ———————— Removed ———————— Subtotal ———————— ————————— 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 4/29/2025 7/7/2025 5.00 50.0 — Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/1/2025 4/28/2025 5.00 20.0 — Grading Grading 7/8/2025 8/4/2025 5.00 20.0 — Building Construction Building Construction 8/5/2025 6/22/2026 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 6/23/2026 7/20/2026 5.00 20.0 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/21/2026 8/17/2026 5.00 20.0 — Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 31 / 44 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Crushing/Proc. Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 200 0.60 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 32 / 44 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation ———— Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 22.8 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT Building Construction ———— Building Construction Worker 57.3 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 22.3 10.2 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT Paving ———— Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 11.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT Demolition ———— Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 33 / 44 Demolition Worker 2.50 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 204,528 68,176 12,652 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 —— Site Preparation ——70.0 0.00 — Grading —3,633 50.0 0.00 — Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.84 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74%74% Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 34 / 44 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0% Parking Lot 0.08 100% Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.95 100% Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 1.81 0% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2025 0.00 349 0.03 < 0.005 2026 0.00 346 0.03 < 0.005 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 128 116 75.0 43,370 1,397 1,263 817 472,769 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 35 / 44 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) 0 0.00 204,528 68,176 12,652 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 250 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 629,769 346 0.0330 0.0040 2,592,144 Parking Lot 3,091 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 31,531,400 934,416 Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 36 / 44 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 864,190 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 128 — Parking Lot 0.00 — Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 — Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 — 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 37 / 44 5.16.2. Process Boilers Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 38 / 44 Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 24.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth Wildfire 6.13 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 0 0 N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 39 / 44 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 3 1 1 3 Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2 Wildfire 1 1 1 2 Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 95.3 AQ-PM 94.0 AQ-DPM 57.9 Drinking Water 72.0 Lead Risk Housing 21.9 Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 40 / 44 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 82.5 Traffic 12.1 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 40.8 Groundwater 0.35 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 27.1 Impaired Water Bodies 0.00 Solid Waste 22.1 Sensitive Population — Asthma 54.9 Cardio-vascular 71.5 Low Birth Weights 94.9 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 64.3 Housing 34.8 Linguistic 30.7 Poverty 47.8 Unemployment 60.6 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 40.36956243 Employed 62.92826896 Median HI 54.94674708 Education — Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 41 / 44 Bachelor's or higher 28.6154241 High school enrollment 100 Preschool enrollment 65.63582702 Transportation — Auto Access 72.44963429 Active commuting 33.78673168 Social — 2-parent households 36.59694598 Voting 36.73809829 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 64.37828821 Park access 81.35506224 Retail density 78.51918388 Supermarket access 45.60503016 Tree canopy 4.991659181 Housing — Homeownership 61.36276145 Housing habitability 51.12280252 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 57.80828949 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 55.52418837 Uncrowded housing 19.45335558 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 39.07352752 Arthritis 82.7 Asthma ER Admissions 46.8 High Blood Pressure 79.0 Cancer (excluding skin)89.7 Asthma 32.2 Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 42 / 44 Coronary Heart Disease 85.5 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 68.2 Diagnosed Diabetes 50.0 Life Expectancy at Birth 59.5 Cognitively Disabled 74.6 Physically Disabled 69.8 Heart Attack ER Admissions 16.0 Mental Health Not Good 32.6 Chronic Kidney Disease 73.0 Obesity 26.8 Pedestrian Injuries 42.8 Physical Health Not Good 40.7 Stroke 75.8 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 30.9 Current Smoker 36.3 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 40.8 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 25.0 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 37.8 Elderly 95.7 English Speaking 63.9 Foreign-born 62.1 Outdoor Workers 27.5 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 56.4 Traffic Density 4.9 Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 43 / 44 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 65.9 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 39.9 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)63.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)47.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Construction: Construction Phases Site is vacant. However, adjusted demolition phase to follow site preparation and grading to account for rock blasting/crushing activities. Conifer-RockCrushing-Exp-v2 Detailed Report, 2/28/2025 44 / 44 Construction: Off-Road Equipment Assumed all construction will be utilized 8 hours per work day. Replaced Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes with Crawler Tractors in the Site Preparation and Grading Phases. Adding Crushing/Proc. equipment to demolition phase to account for rock crushing. Operations: Vehicle Data Adjusted rates for Weekday Trips, Saturday Trips, and Sunday Trips to match ITE 11th Edition Trip Rates for Mini Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 151). Land Use Adjusted according to site plan. Assumed a total graded construction acreage of 9.3, as provided by Project Applicant. Construction: Dust From Material Movement Adjusted soil export to match grading numbers provided by client. Construction: Off-Road Equipment EF Input emissions factors for crushing/proc. equipment using EMFAC OFFROAD2021, San Bernardino sub-area, calendar year 2025 Conifer Self Storage Project Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary 27 | Page ATTACHMENT B: FUEL CALCULATIONS PROPOSED PROJECT Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.9) Emissions Inventory Region Type: Sub-Area Region: San Bernardino (SC) Calendar Year: 2025 <- Construction Start Year Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower-hours/year for Horsepower-hours Region Calendar Year VehClass MdlYr HP_Bin Fuel Fuel Consumption Horsepower Hours Fuel Rate San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 95174.0347 2005573.057 0.047454783 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2547460.853 47956010.14 0.053120784 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Graders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 381106.7283 7394489.145 0.051539291 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Excavators Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2604289.236 50850036.74 0.051215091 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Scrapers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 981612.5842 20411713.1 0.048090652 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Industrial - Forklifts Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 336194.7493 6313047.192 0.053253958 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Light Commercial - Misc - Generator Sets Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 157193.8726 1946592.45 0.080753356 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Cranes Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3989.45 87585.4 0.045549258 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Light Commercial - Misc - Welders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 170976.933 5315378.2 0.032166466 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Pavers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 167866.7287 3254377.96 0.051581817 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Paving Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 185966.8914 3634626.686 0.051165335 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Rollers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 443227.0426 8427705.057 0.052591665 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Light Commercial - Misc - Air Compressors Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 32725.72559 1084046.35 0.030188493 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Concrete/Industrial Saws Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1800.97 42880.2 0.042000037 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Crawler Tractors Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 817511.9811 16192119.1 0.050488264 San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Off-Highway Trucks Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1084653.718 22167000.4 0.04893101 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory Region Type: Sub-Area Region: San Bernardino (SC) Calendar Year: 2025 Season: Annual 2025 Construction start year Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Units: miles/year for CVMT and EVMT, trips/year for Trips, kWh/year for Energy Consumption, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel VMT Fuel Consumption Fuel Rate San Bernardino (SC)2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 205505209.6 22845.95176 9.00 100% San Bernardino (SC)2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 561322084.2 92421.1885 6.07 100% Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory Region Type: Sub-Area Region: San Bernardino (SC) Calendar Year: 2025 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Units: miles/year for CVMT and EVMT, trips/year for Trips, kWh/year for Energy Consumption, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel VMT Fuel Consumption San Bernardino (SC)2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6944290025 228752.9463 30.36 100% San Bernardino (SC)2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 480945552.2 19239.37501 25.00 100% San Bernardino (SC)2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2830132229 113820.9189 24.86 100% 50/25/25 Splits 27.64 COUNTY CONSUMPTION Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory Region Type: County Region: San Bernardino Calendar Year: 2025 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Units: miles/year for CVMT and EVMT, trips/year for Trips, kWh/year for Energy Consumption, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Total VMT Fuel Consumption San Bernardino 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1409503115 227211.8642 San Bernardino 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 22908322.93 538.4290578 San Bernardino 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 113728.1136 4.772214198 San Bernardino 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 15575280.09 466.3673543 San Bernardino 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 273112703.3 13274.63036 San Bernardino 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 119678851.1 6962.709558 San Bernardino 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 49962425.66 2093.250856 San Bernardino 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7396095.144 715.3495991 San Bernardino 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 255904603.6 28352.95663 San Bernardino 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5911056.493 794.063247 San Bernardino 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7229061.858 960.9661473 San Bernardino 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 228180.9821 24.48993467 San Bernardino 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 115073.5783 29.04070611 San Bernardino 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 11385170616 377677.6803 San Bernardino 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 836255667.3 33693.04519 San Bernardino 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4833537695 195773.8744 San Bernardino 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 362476554.2 26449.53865 San Bernardino 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 52926846.5 4362.671343 San Bernardino 2025 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 78736922.8 1890.847303 San Bernardino 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3442889917 173046.22 San Bernardino 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 17506444.72 3624.012517 San Bernardino 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 46004844.6 8784.936707 San Bernardino 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 10018530.73 1956.519864 San Bernardino 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6677574.354 735.9055841 San Bernardino 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3446605.109 588.5040268 Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.9) Emissions Inventory Region Type: County Region: San Bernardino Calendar Year: 2025 Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower-hours/year for Horsepower-hours Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Horsepower Bin Fuel Fuel Consumption Horsepower_Hours_hhpy San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Bore/Drill Rigs Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 407950.3649 8075599.797 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Bucket Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9703.693986 188455.0815 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Compactor Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 15778.13426 310226.7912 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Concrete Mixer Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1459.908369 28443.93393 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Concrete Pump Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 14725.39846 290375.3004 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Crane less than 35ton Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7559.109239 138715.7869 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Cranes Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 373811.0681 7051394.087 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Crawler Tractors Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1051074.631 20818197.17 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Crushing/Processing Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 56893.94331 1123463.149 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Excavators Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3348333.005 65377859.72 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Graders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 489988.6768 9507089.964 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Hopper Tractor Trailer Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 961.9631606 19069.57133 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Bore/Drill Rigs Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 38.82 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Cement And Mortar Mixers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 56.87 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Concrete/Industrial Saws Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2218.27 52877.55 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Dumpers/Tenders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4.586 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Excavators Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 32.79 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Other Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 121.94 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Pavers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8.61 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Paving Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 14.66 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Plate Compactors Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 40.93 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Rollers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 250.7 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Rubber Tired Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5.95 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Signal Boards Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1614.55 21472.95 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Skid Steer Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1689 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 156.6 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Trenchers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 210.6 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Nurse Rig Other Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 86.93562511 1723.376915 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Off-Highway Tractors Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 596656.5858 11714995.25 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Off-Highway Trucks Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1394538.591 28500098.23 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Other Construction Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 688725.2789 13430214.56 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Other Material Handling Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 212603.5969 4167118.02 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Pavers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 215553.0025 4184151.662 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Paving Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 239097.5133 4673037.206 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Rollers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 569856.7252 10835495 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Rough Terrain Forklifts Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 706845.7984 13562396.29 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 122365.1955 2578563.997 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2443208.063 48396280.88 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Scrapers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1262058.672 26243326.48 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Skid Steer Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1158137.405 20866580.09 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Spray Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 14084.97365 273028.444 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Spreader Tractor Trailer Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1767.96603 34886.69911 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Spreader Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11039.58756 216561.4726 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Surfacing Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 113188.2398 2247273.78 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Tank Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 24172.78355 478702.7249 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Tanker Truck Trailer Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1852.865484 35559.3144 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Telescopic Handler Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 48427.99854 928730.9452 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3275268.79 61657011.56 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Trenchers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 113933.9222 2152755.196 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Vacuum Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 36480.32935 718778.7428 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Water Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 108660.7399 2153801.655 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Asphalt Pavers Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 9238.65 96181.15 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Bore/Drill Rigs Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 5979.87 65838.7 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Cement And Mortar Mixers Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 35534.8 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Concrete/Industrial Saws Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 45016.1 192592.25 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Cranes Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4927.5 107572.8 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Crushing/Proc. Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 225.48 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Dumpers/Tenders Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3678.4 6022.5 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Other Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 7515.35 172922.4 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Paving Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 66520.2 96046.1 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Plate Compactors Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 24265.8 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Rollers Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 31393.6 292229.95 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Rough Terrain Forklifts Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 34777.2 574816.6 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Rubber Tired Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 18417.9 348472.8 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Signal Boards Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 687.44 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Skid Steer Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 67938.55 891768 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Surfacing Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 29496.6 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Tampers/Rammers Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4078.8 0 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 11833.3 254784.6 San Bernardino 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Trenchers Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 57488.2 502079.4 Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.9) Emissions Inventory Region Type: Sub-Area Region: San Bernardino (SC) Calendar Year: 2025 Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower-hours/year for Horsepower-hours Region Calendar YearVehicle CategoryModel Year Horsepower BinFuel HC_tpd ROG_tpd TOG_tpd CO_tpd NOx_tpd CO2_tpd PM10_tpd PM2.5_tpd SOx_tpd NH3_tpd Fuel ConsumptionTotal_Activity_hpyTotal_PopulationHorsepower_Hours_hhpyhph San Bernardino (SC)2025 Construction and Mining - Crushing/Processing EquipmentAggregateAggregateDiesel0.000309 0.000373 0.000444 0.003901 0.002065 1.361782 8.07E-05 7.42E-05 1.29E-05 0 44251.36 9639.878 16.35968 873814.8 2394.013 Conversion factors 907185 grams in 1 ton g/day 279.9319 338.7175 403.1022 3539.134 1873.282 1235389 73.20983 67.31313 11.70269 0 0.98632 bhp in 1 HP g/hph 0.11693 0.141485 0.168379 1.478327 0.782486 516.0325 0.03058 0.028117 0.004888 g/bhp-hr HC ROG TOG CO NOx CO2 PM10 PM2.5 SOx NH3 0.118552 0.143448 0.170715 1.498831 0.793339 523.1897 0.031005 0.028507 0.004956 0 Equipment Fuel Type Number/day hours/day hp LF EMISSION RATES (g/bhp-hr) Crushing diesel 1 8 200 0.6 HC ROG TOG CO NOx CO2 PM10E PM2.5E SOx NH3 CH4 N2O 0.1185518 0.1434476 0.1707147 1.4988307 0.7933388 523.189738 0.0310045 0.02850725 0.0049561 NH3 0.023 0.005 EMISSIONS (lb/day) HC ROG TOG CO NOx CO2 PM10E PM2.5E SOx NH3 CH4 N2O CONVERSION FACTORS 0.25 0.30 0.36 3.17 1.68 1107.30 0.07 0.06 0.01 #VALUE!0.05 0.01 453.592 grams in 1 lb 0.98632 bhp in 1 HP