Industry City Council
June 10, 2025

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
Criteria Pollutants
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O3) (precursor emissions include NOX and reactive organic gases (ROG), CO, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The Riverside County portion of the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.

Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Trend
In 1984, as a result of public concern for exposure to airborne carcinogens, CARB adopted regulations to reduce the amount of TAC emissions resulting from mobile and area sources, such as cars, trucks, stationary products, and consumer products. According to the Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California journal article (2) which was prepared for CARB, results show that between 1990-2012, ambient concentration and emission trends for the seven TACs responsible for most of the known cancer risk associated with airborne exposure in California have declined significantly (between 1990 and 2012). The seven TACs studied include those that are derived from mobile sources: diesel particulate matter (DPM), benzene (C6H6), and 1,3-butadiene (C4H6); those that are derived from stationary sources: perchloroethylene (C2Cl4) and hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)); and those derived from photochemical reactions of emitted VOCs: formaldehyde (CH2O) and acetaldehyde (C2H4O)1. The decline in ambient concentration and emission trends of these TACs are a result of various regulations CARB has implemented to address cancer risk.

Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors”. These structures typically include uses such as residences, hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Consistent with the LST Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time.

Receptors in the Project study area are described below. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, 1 It should be noted that ambient DPM concentrations are not measured directly. Rather, a surrogate method using the coefficient of haze (COH) and elemental carbon (EC) is used to estimate DPM concentrations.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
whichever is closer to the Project site. Receptors in the Project study area are shown on Exhibit 22 under the Localized Construction Emissions section later in the report. • Receptor R1 represents Kings Two Dental at 20819 Currier Rd, approximately 42 feet east of the Project site.
• Receptor R2 represents the existing residence at 20739 Lycoming St, approximately 1,234 feet south of the Project site.
• Receptor R3 represents Clemson Distribution, Inc. at 20722 Currier Rd, approximately 72 feet south of the Project site.
• Receptor R4 represents Del Paso High School at 476 S Lemon Ave, approximately 197 feet west of the Project site.
• Receptor R5 represents Walnut Valley Pest Control at 404 S Lemon Ave, approximately 165 feet north of the Project site.

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for O3, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and lead (Pb) (3). The EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of CARB.

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance (4). The CAA also mandates that each state submit and implement state implementation plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions) (5) (6). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, CO, PM2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5.
2 It should be noted that the distance to the closest receptor was measured from the site boundary which is conservative as construction will occur primarily on the eastern portion of the site. As such, the actual distance from construction activities to the closest receptors would be further away than what is summarized in this analysis.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NOX. NOX is a collective term that includes all forms of NOX which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.

CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
CARB
The CARB, which became part of the California EPA (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. AB 2595 mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for SO4, visibility, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride (C2H3Cl). However, at this time, H2S and C2H3Cl are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (7) (8).

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

Serious non-attainment areas are required to prepare Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include:
• Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g. motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development);
• A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions;
• Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a 5% or more annual reduction in emissions or 15% or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NOX, CO and PM10. However, air basins may use alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than 5% per year under certain circumstances.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
AQMP
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMP to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards (9). AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.

APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIRMENTS
SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (10) (11).

SCAQMD Rule 403
This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent and reduce fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust and requires best available control measures to be applied to earth moving and grading activities. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below. • Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. • All onsite roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
• All material transported offsite will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
• Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

SCAQMD Rule 1113
This rule serves to limit the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of architectural coatings used on projects in the SCAQMD. Any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating for use on projects in the SCAQMD must comply with the current VOC standards set in this rule.

METHODOLOGY
In August 2023, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.23. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (12). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Standards of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related air quality impacts are taken from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (14 CCR §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would (13):
• Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Threshold 2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• Threshold 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Threshold 4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

AIR QUALITY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as summarized at Table 1 (14). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (March 2023) indicate that any projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

TABLE 1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operations
NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
lbs/day – Pounds Per Day

AIR QUALITY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST analysis is the SCAQMD Pomona/Walnut Valley Area monitoring station (SRA 10). LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size. The SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in determining localized impacts. It should be noted that since the look-up tables identify thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been utilized

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
to determine localized significance thresholds. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, the thresholds presented in Table 2 were calculated by interpolating the threshold values for the Project’s disturbed acreage.

The acres disturbed is based on the equipment list and days in the site improvements, new building expansion, and existing building work phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday. The equipmentspecific grading rates are summarized in the CalEEMod user’s guide, Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod (15). It should be noted that the disturbed area per day is representative of a piece of equipment making multiple passes over the same land area. In other words, one Rubber Tired Dozer can make multiple passes over the same land area totaling 0.5 acres in a given 8-hour day. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site improvements, new building expansion, and existing building work activities are considered for purposes of localized significance thresholds (LSTs) since this phase represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. The Project’s construction activities could disturb a maximum of approximately 0.5 acre per day for site improvements, 0.5 acre per day for new building expansion, and 0.5 acre per day for existing building work activities. Any other construction phases of development would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As such, Table 2 presents thresholds for localized construction and operational emissions. It should be noted that a 1 acre per day disturbance area for site improvements, new building expansion, and existing building work activities was utilized as this is the SCAQMD look-up tables minimum acreage.

TABLE 2: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Source Activity
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction
Site Improvements 103 lbs/day 612 lbs/day 110 lbs/day 51 lbs/day New Building Expansion 103 lbs/day 612 lbs/day 110 lbs/day 51 lbs/day Existing Building Work 103 lbs/day 612 lbs/day 110 lbs/day 51 lbs/day Operations N/A 236 lbs/day 1,566 lbs/day 33 lbs/day 16 lbs/day 1 Source of localized significance threshold (LSTs) is provided on page 16.

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Site Improvements
• New Building Expansion
• Existing Building Work

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment

GRADING ACTIVITIES
Dust is typically a major concern during grading activities. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called “fugitive emissions”. Fugitive dust emissions rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc.). CalEEMod was utilized to calculate fugitive dust emissions resulting from this phase of activity. Per client provided data, the Project would require 45,440 cubic yards of export for earthwork activities. The CalEEMod default trip length of 20-miles will be used to analyze the emissions associated with export activities.

ON-ROAD TRIPS
Construction generates on-road vehicle emissions from vehicle usage for workers, vendors, and haul trucks commuting to and from the site. Worker and vendor trips are based on client provided data. Hauling trips are based on CalEEMod defaults.

CONSTRUCTION DURATION
For purposes of analysis, construction of Project is expected to commence in August 2024 and would last through January 2027. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “conservative” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent3. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines (16).

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
CalEEMod default parameters for equipment have been used. Consistent with industry standards and typical construction practices, each piece of equipment will operate up to a total of eight (8) hours per day, or more than two-thirds of the period during which construction activities are allowed pursuant to the code.

REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions are summarized on Table 3, and as shown, the Project construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Thus, the Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with construction activities.

Detailed Construction model outputs are presented in Attachment A. 3 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2022, Appendix G “Table G-11. Statewide Average Annual Offoad Equipment Emission Factors” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 3: REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2024 3.37 31.24 31.76 0.07 3.97 2.23
2025 3.26 28.27 31.42 0.07 3.82 2.09
2026 2.95 23.99 28.65 0.06 1.44 0.95
Winter
2024 3.37 31.38 31.31 0.07 3.97 2.23
2025 3.25 28.39 30.76 0.07 3.82 2.09
2026 3.09 24.14 29.91 0.06 3.50 1.91
2027 2.87 23.05 27.88 0.06 1.38 0.89
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.37 31.38 31.76 0.07 3.97 2.23 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
1 PM10 and PM2.5 source emissions reflect 3x daily watering per SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust.

REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
area source emissions, energy source emissions, stationary source emissions, and on-site cargo equipment emissions.

The Project related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project. Trip characteristics available from the 20701 Currier Road Project VMT Assessment were utilized in this analysis (17). Based on the VMT Assessment, the Project’s proposed expansion will result in approximately 60,100 less weekly vehicle trips or 3,133,794 less yearly vehicle trips.

The reduction in VMT is a direct result of the facility expansion which will allow for sufficient space to receive and store goods for consolidated loads and reduce partial deliveries to other facility locations, which will result in less mileage traveled, less fuel usage, and less operating costs. As such, mobile sources were modeled based on the 3,133,794 yearly vehicle trips and will result in a net decrease in emissions, as shown on Table 4.

The estimated operation-source emissions from the Project are summarized on Table 4. Detailed operation model outputs are presented in Attachment A. As shown on Table 4, operationalsource emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for emissions of any criteria pollutant and would in fact result in less emissions than the existing facility.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 4: TOTAL PROJECT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source -1.98 -4.84 -64.35 -0.19 -18.37 -4.74
Area Source 3.29 0.04 4.78 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Source 0.04 0.74 0.62 0.00 0.06 0.06
Stationary Source 0.98 2.75 2.51 0.00 0.14 0.14
On-site Cargo Equipment 0.12 0.38 16.44 0.00 0.03 0.03
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 2.45 -0.94 -39.99 -0.18 -18.13 -4.51 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source -1.96 -5.32 -54.96 -0.18 -18.37 -4.74
Area Source 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.04 0.74 0.62 0.00 0.06 0.06
Stationary Source 0.98 2.75 2.51 0.00 0.14 0.14
On-site Cargo Equipment 0.12 0.38 16.44 0.00 0.03 0.03
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 1.68 -1.46 -35.39 -0.17 -18.14 -4.51 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO

LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (18). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-44. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor.

The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its 4 The purpose of SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution and fair access to the decision-making process that works to improve the quality of air within their communities. Further, the SCAQMD defines Environmental Justice as “…equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.”

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
air quality impact analyses. It should be noted that SCAQMD also states that Projects that are statutorily or categorically exempt under CEQA would not be subject to LST analyses. Projects exempt from CEQA also include infill projects that meet the H&S Code provisions. As such, although not required for this Project, LST analysis is presented to further underscore that there are in fact no significant impacts associated with the Project.

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is location R2, represented by the existing residence at 20739 Lycoming St, approximately 1,234 feet (376 meters) south of the Project site.

Receptors in the Project study area shown on Exhibit 25.

As previously stated, and consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of NOx and CO is location R2, represented by Kings Two Dental at 20819 Currier Rd, approximately 42 feet (13 meters) east of the Project site.

It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters (18).” As such, for evaluation of localized NOx and CO, a 25-meter distance will be used. 5 It should be noted that the distance to the closest receptor was measured from the site boundary which is conservative as construction will occur primarily on the eastern portion of the site. As such, the actual distance from construction activities to the closest receptors would be further away than what is summarized in this analysis.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
EXHIBIT 2: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
Table 5 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. Outputs from the model runs for construction LSTs are provided in Attachment A. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site improvements, new building expansion, and existing building work activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represent the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As shown in Table 5, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized Project-related construction-source emissions and no mitigation is required.

TABLE 5: PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Improvements
Maximum Daily Emissions 28.35 27.47 2.85 1.93
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 103 612 110 51
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
New Building Expansion
Maximum Daily Emissions 25.49 26.41 2.69 1.78
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 103 612 110 51
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Existing Building Work
Maximum Daily Emissions 23.76 25.84 0.89 0.82
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 103 612 110 51
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO

LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Table 6 identifies the localized operational impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. In an effort to establish a maximum potential impact scenario for analytical purposes, the emissions shown on Table 6 represent all on-site Project-related stationary (area) sources and on-site mobile source emissions. It should be noted that the longest on-site distance is roughly 0.27 miles for both trucks and passenger vehicles. As such, a separate CalEEMod run for operational LSTs has been prepared which accounts for the 0.27-mile on-site travel distance.

Outputs from the model runs for operational LSTs are provided in Attachment B. As shown in Table 6, emissions resulting from the Project operation will not exceed the numerical localized thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized Project-related operational-source emissions and no mitigation is required.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
TABLE 6: PROJECT LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 5.45 16.44 0.23 0.21
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 236 1,566 33 16
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 1
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality.

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

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

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

In December 2022, the SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels (19). Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements (20). The Project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP as discussed below.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook (21). These indicators are discussed below.

The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

The violations that under this criterion refer to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded. As evaluated, the Project’s regional and localized construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds. As such, a less than significant impact is expected.

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

The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project buildout phase.

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

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

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

The City of Industry General Plan designates the Project site as “Employment” uses. The “Employment” designation allows for a wide range of business and employment uses including industrial manufacturing, assembly, printing, machining, milling, welding research and development, distribution, warehousing, storage, and supporting office uses (22).

The proposed Project includes the development of a 109,423 square-foot building expansion to the existing facility for the purpose of expanding the quantity of products and number of product lines that are carried by the facility. Approximately 91% of the proposed building expansion will be used for food storage and/or docks, and approximately 1,600 square feet will be used for offices, restrooms, and breakrooms. As previously stated, the Project is consistent with the current land use and zoning designation. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP. Furthermore, the Project, as evaluated herein would not exceed the regional or localized air quality significance thresholds.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the AQMP and a less than significant impact is expected.

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 2
Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The CAAQS designates the Project site as nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the Project site as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution:

White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (23). In this report the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

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

Construction Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project construction-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, proposed Project construction-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.

Operational Impacts
The Project‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that proposed Project operational-source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project operational-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis.

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 3
Would the expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The potential impact of Project-generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
Additionally, the Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.

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

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

To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods6. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any exceedance of the 1-hour (20.0 ppm) or 8-hour (9.0 ppm) CO standards, as shown on Table 7.

TABLE 7: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
CO Concentrations (ppm)
Morning 1-hour Afternoon 1-hour 8-hour
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4.6 3.5 3.7
Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 4 4.5 3.5
La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 3.7 3.1 5.2
Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 3 3.1 8.4
Notes: Federal 1-hour standard is 35 ppm and the deferral 8-hour standard is 9.0 ppm.

Based on the SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example, of the 8.4 ppm 8-hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (i.e., the highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared (24). In contrast, an adverse CO 6 The CO “hot spot” analysis conducted in 2003 is the most current study used for CO “hot spot” analysis in the SCAB.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

The ambient 1-hr and 8-hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 1.6 ppm and 1.1 ppm, respectively (data from Pomona/Walnut Valley station for 2022). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed Project were ten times the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection, due to the on-going improvements in ambient air quality and vehicular emissions controls, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections. As noted above, only 0.7 ppm were attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at one of the busiest intersections in the SCAB.

Therefore, if these traffic volumes were multiplied by ten times, it could be expected that the CO attributable to traffic would increase tenfold as well, resulting in 7 ppm – even if this were added to either the 1-hour or 8-hour CO concentrations within the Project study area, this would result in 8.6 ppm and 8.1 ppm for the 1-hr and 8-hr timeframes, respectively. Neither of which would exceed the applicable 1-hr standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hr standard of 9 ppm.

Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (25). Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis is shown on Table 8. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which had AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively (24).

TABLE 8: CO MODEL RESULTS
Intersection Location
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue 4,954/2,069 1,830/3,317 721/1,400 560/933 8,062/7,719 Sunset Boulevard/Highland Avenue 1,417/1,764 1,342/1,540 2,304/1,832 1,551/2,238 6,614/5,374 La Cienega Boulevard/Century Boulevard 2,540/2,243 1,890/2,728 1,384/2,029 821/1,674 6,634/8,674 Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway 1,217/2,020 1,760/1,400 479/944 756/1,150 4,212/5,514 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 4
Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include:
• Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.

Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required (26).

PROJECT GHG ANALYSIS

CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING
Global climate change (GCC) is the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. The majority of scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

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

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2, N2O, CH4, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages.

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature.

For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O were evaluated because these gases are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases.

REGULATORY SETTING
Executive Order S-3-05
Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Assembly Bill (AB) 32
The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, which requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “GHGs” as defined under AB 32 include CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs.

CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and costeffective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 states the following:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 million metric ton of CO2 equivalent per year (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007 (27). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (28). At that level, a 28.4% reduction was required to achieve the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, CARB prepared an updated BAU 2020 forecast to account for the recession and slower forecasted growth. The forecasted inventory without the benefits of adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 MMTCO2e. Therefore, under the updated forecast, a

21.7% reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels (29).

Progress in Achieving AB 32 Targets and Remaining Reductions Required The State has made steady progress in implementing AB 32 and achieving targets included in Executive Order S-3-05. The progress is shown in updated emission inventories prepared by CARB for 2000 through 2012 (30). The State has achieved the Executive Order S-3-05 target for 2010 of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels. As shown below, the 2010 emission inventory achieved this target.
• 1990: 427 MMTCO2e (AB 32 2020 target)
• 2000: 463 MMTCO2e (an average 8% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) • 2010: 450 MMTCO2e (an average 5% reduction needed to achieve 1990 base) CARB has also made substantial progress in achieving its goal of achieving 1990 emissions levels by 2020. As described earlier in this section, CARB revised the 2020 BAU inventory forecast to account for new lower growth projections, which resulted in a new lower reduction from BAU to achieve the 1990 base. The previous reduction from 2020 BAU needed to achieve 1990 levels was 28.4% and the latest reduction from 2020 BAU is 21.7%. • 2020: 545 MMTCO2e BAU (an average 21.7% reduction from BAU needed to achieve 1990 base)
Senate Bill (SB) 32
On September 8, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed the SB 32 and its companion bill, AB 197. SB 32 requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3- 05, which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB not only responds to the Governor, but also the Legislature (31).

AB 197
A condition of approval for SB 32 was the passage of AB 197. AB 197 requires that CARB consider the social costs of GHG emissions and prioritize direct reductions in GHG emissions at mobile

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
sources and large stationary sources. AB 197 also gives the California legislature more oversight over CARB through the addition of two legislatively appointed members to the CARB Board and the establishment a legislative committee to make recommendations about CARB programs to the legislature.

Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100
Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100. SB 100 and Executive Order B-55-18 were signed by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018. Under the existing RPS, 25% of retail sales are required to be from renewable sources by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by December 31, 2024, 45% by December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. SB 100 raises California’s RPS requirement to 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44% of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030. In addition to targets under AB 32 and SB 32, Executive Order B55-18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal for the state of California by 2045; and sets a goal to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The Executive Order directs the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and CARB to include sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan consistent with the carbon neutrality goal.

Title 24 California Code of Regulations (CCR)
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.

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

CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective on January 1, 20237. As construction of the Project is anticipated to be completed in 2027, the Project would be required to comply with the Title 24 standards in place at that time.

SCAQMD
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a lead agency if they are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This 7 The 2022 California Green Building Standard Code will be published July 1, 2022.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions.

In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the SCAB. The Working Group developed several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, that could be applied by lead agencies. The working group has not provided additional guidance since the release of the interim guidance in 2008. The SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by the lead agency in adopting its own threshold. The current interim thresholds consist of the following tiered approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but 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 is less than significant:
o Residential and commercial land use: 3,000 metric ton of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e/yr)
o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e/yr
o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e/yr; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e/yr; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e/yr
• Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce Business-as-Usual (BAU) emissions by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined.
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures o Option 3: 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees: 4.8 MTCO2e per SP per year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e per SP per year for plans;
o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e per SP per year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e per SP per year for plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.

The SCAQMD’s interim thresholds used the Executive Order S-3-05-year 2050 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate.

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
SCAQMD only has authority over GHG emissions from development projects that include air quality permits. At this time, it is unknown if the project would include stationary sources of emissions subject to SCAQMD permits. Notwithstanding, if the Project requires a stationary permit, it would be subject to the applicable SCAQMD regulations.

SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, adopted in 2009 includes the following rules:
• Rule 2700 defines terms and post global warming potentials. • Rule 2701, Southern California (SoCal) Climate Solutions Exchange, establishes a voluntary program to encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified GHG emission reductions in the SCAQMD.
• Rule 2702, GHG Reduction Program created a program to produce GHG emission reductions within the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD will fund projects through contracts in response to requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.

SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a lead agency if they are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions.

GHG IMPACTS
Standards of Significance
According to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, to determine whether impacts from GHG emissions are significant. Would the project:
• Threshold 1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
• Threshold 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
The evaluation of an impact under CEQA requires measuring data from a project against both existing conditions and a “threshold of significance.” For establishing significance thresholds, the Office of Planning and Research’s amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) state “[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) further states, “. . . A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use . . .; or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards.”

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides that a lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, in assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions:
• Consideration #1: The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting. • Consideration #2: Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
• Consideration #3: The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

Discussion on Establishment of Significance Thresholds
Based on the foregoing guidance, the City of Industry has elected to rely on compliance with a local air district threshold in the determination of significance of Project-related GHG emissions.

Specifically, the City has selected the interim 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold recommended by SCAQMD staff for residential and commercial sector projects against which to compare Projectrelated GHG emissions.

The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold is based on a 90 percent emission “capture” rate methodology. Prior to its use by the SCAQMD, the 90 percent emissions capture approach was one of the options suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in their CEQA & Climate Change white paper (2008). A 90 percent emission capture rate means that unmitigated GHG emissions from the top 90 percent of all GHG-producing projects within a geographic area – the SCAB in this instance – would be subject to a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts from GHG emissions, while the bottom 10 percent of all GHG-producing projects would be excluded from detailed analysis. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate is appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because medium and large projects will be required to implement measures to reduce GHG emissions, while small projects, which are generally infill development projects that are not the focus of the State’s GHG reduction targets, are allowed to proceed. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial proportion of future development projects and demonstrate that cumulative emissions reductions are being achieved while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will, in aggregate, contribute approximate 1 percent of projected statewide GHG emissions in the Year 2050 (32).

In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
projects, 87 of which were removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emissions values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate. The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year.

The SCAQMD set their significance threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per year) to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide further analysis.

The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for residential/commercial uses 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 2022 (32). Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction.

Thus, for purposes of analysis in this analysis, if Project-related GHG emissions do not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold, then Project-related GHG emissions would clearly have a lessthan-significant impact pursuant to Threshold GHG-1. On the other hand, if Project-related GHG emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year, the Project would be considered a substantial source of GHG emissions.

GHG IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 1
Would the Project have the potential to generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment?

PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
The estimated GHG emissions for the Project land use are summarized on Table 9. The estimated GHG emission includes emissions from Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), and Refrigerants (R). Based on the VMT Assessment, the Project’s proposed expansion will result in approximately 60,100 less weekly vehicle trips or 3,133,794 less yearly vehicle trips. The reduction in VMT is a direct result of the facility expansion which will allow for sufficient space to

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
receive and store goods for consolidated loads and reduce partial deliveries to other facility locations, which will result in less mileage traveled, less fuel usage, and less operating costs. As such, mobile sources were modeled based on the 3,133,794 yearly vehicle trips and will result in a net decrease in emissions, as shown on Table 9.

As shown on Table 9, the Project would generate a total decrease of approximately 2,288.86 MTCO2e/yr. Detailed operation model outputs for the proposed Project are presented in Attachment A.

TABLE 9: TOTAL PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Source
Emission (MT/year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 75.80 3.22E-03 1.78E-03 1.68E-02 76.42 Mobile -3112.16 -0.09 -0.10 -4.36 -3149.17
Area 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.24
Energy 595.81 0.05 0.00 0.00 598.21
Water 47.04 0.83 0.02 0.00 73.76
Waste 9.23 0.92 0.00 0.00 32.28
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.56 18.56
Stationary 11.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.46
On-Site Cargo Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.37
Total CO2e (All Sources) -2,288.86
A numerical threshold for determining the significance of GHG emissions in the SCAB has not been established by the SCAQMD for Projects where it is not the lead agency. As an interim threshold based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook, the City has opted to use a non-zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the handbook.

Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90% of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for all projects (33).

The Project would result in a decrease of approximately 2,288.86 MTCO2e/yr; the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.

GHG IMPACTS – CONSISTENCY WITH THRESHOLD NO. 2
Would the Project have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? Pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions (34).

Danielle Ornelas, CASC Engineering & Consulting
May 31, 2024

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment
The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon (35).

Finally, the Project is consistent with the general plan land use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in SCAG's Sustainable Community Strategy/ Regional Transportation Plan, which pursuant to SB 375 calls for the integration of transportation, land-use and housing policies to plan for achievement of the GHG-emissions target for the region. Thus, a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions from Project construction and operation would occur and no mitigation is required.

CONCLUSION
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact during construction or operational activities associated with air quality and GHG.

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment

REFERENCES

1. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Southern California Air Basins. [Online] https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/porttruck/maps/scabc7map.pdf.

2. Ralph Propper, Patrick Wong, Son Bui, Jeff Austin, William Vance, Alvaro Alvarado, Bart Croes, and Dongmin Luo. Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California. American Chemical Society: Environmental Science & Technology. 2015.

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

4. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act. [Online] http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.

5. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title I. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/cleanair-act-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-i.

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

7. Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). [Online] 2009. [Cited: April 16, 2018.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm.

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

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

10. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule403.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

11. —. RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf.

12. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). [Online] May 2022. www.caleemod.com.

13. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.

14. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf.

15. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CalEEMod. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6.

16. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment

17. Fehr Peers. 20701 Currier Road Project VMT Assessment . 2024.

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

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

20. Southern California Association of Governments. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. [Online] September 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocalplan_0.pdf?1606001176.

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

22. City of Industry. City of Industry General Plan. [Online] 2014. https://www.cityofindustry.org/home/showpublisheddocument/1693/636422096 213600000.

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

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

25. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. [Online] http://www.baaqmd.gov/.

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

27. California Air Resources Board. GHG 1990 Emissions Level & 2020 Limit. California Air Resources Board. [Online] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-2020-limit.

28. —. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan. 2008.

29. —. STATUS OF SCOPING PLAN RECOMMENDED MEASURES. [Online] [Cited: September 19, 2019.]
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf.

30. —. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. 2014.

31. California Legislative Information. Senate Bill No. 32. [Online] September 8, 2016. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB3

2. 32. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Interim CEQA GHG Significnace Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Diamond Bar : s.n., 2008.

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment

33. —. Interim CEQA GHG Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. [Online] December 5, 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significancethresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf.

34. Association of Environmental Professionals. 2018 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2018.

35. California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scopuing Plan Documents. [Online] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scopingplan/2022-scoping-plan-documents.

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment

ATTACHMENT A

CALEEMOD PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 1 / 49
13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco 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. Site Improvements (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Improvements (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. New Building Expansion (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. New Building Expansion (2026) - Unmitigated

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 2 / 49

3.9. Existing Building Work (2026) - Unmitigated

3.11. Existing Building Work (2027) - 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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 3 / 49

4.7.1. Unmitigated

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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 4 / 49

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 5 / 49

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 6 / 49

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 7 / 49

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco
Construction Start Date 8/1/2024
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.80
Precipitation (days) 18.8
Location 20701 Currier Rd, Walnut, CA 91789, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Industry
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5024
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility City of Industry
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.23

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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 8 / 49
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
110 1000sqft 2.53 110,000 220,562 — — —
Parking Lot 174 Space 1.57 0.00 0.00 — — —
User Defined
Industrial
110 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — —

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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.10 3.37 31.2 31.8 0.07 1.17 2.81 3.97 1.08 1.16 2.23 — 9,110 9,110 0.40 0.42 7.23 9,251 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.10 3.37 31.4 31.3 0.07 1.17 2.81 3.97 1.08 1.16 2.23 — 9,081 9,081 0.40 0.42 0.19 9,215 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.74 2.30 19.1 21.9 0.05 0.71 1.90 2.61 0.65 0.79 1.44 — 5,625 5,625 0.24 0.14 1.43 5,672 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.50 0.42 3.48 4.00 0.01 0.13 0.35 0.48 0.12 0.14 0.26 — 931 931 0.04 0.02 0.24 939

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 9 / 49
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.10 3.37 31.2 31.8 0.07 1.17 2.81 3.97 1.08 1.16 2.23 — 9,110 9,110 0.40 0.42 7.23 9,251 2025 3.85 3.26 28.3 31.4 0.07 1.01 2.81 3.82 0.93 1.16 2.09 — 9,062 9,062 0.40 0.40 6.99 9,198 2026 3.50 2.95 24.0 28.6 0.06 0.89 0.55 1.44 0.82 0.13 0.95 — 6,992 6,992 0.29 0.08 2.00 7,025 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.10 3.37 31.4 31.3 0.07 1.17 2.81 3.97 1.08 1.16 2.23 — 9,081 9,081 0.40 0.42 0.19 9,215 2025 3.84 3.25 28.4 30.8 0.07 1.01 2.81 3.82 0.93 1.16 2.09 — 9,033 9,033 0.40 0.40 0.18 9,163 2026 3.65 3.09 24.1 29.9 0.06 0.89 2.61 3.50 0.82 1.09 1.91 — 7,316 7,316 0.31 0.09 0.08 7,352 2027 3.40 2.87 23.0 27.9 0.06 0.83 0.55 1.38 0.76 0.13 0.89 — 6,951 6,951 0.27 0.08 0.05 6,982 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.23 1.01 9.41 9.41 0.02 0.35 0.84 1.19 0.32 0.35 0.67 — 2,721 2,721 0.12 0.12 0.93 2,762 2025 2.74 2.30 19.1 21.9 0.05 0.71 1.90 2.61 0.65 0.79 1.44 — 5,625 5,625 0.24 0.14 1.43 5,672 2026 2.51 2.11 17.2 20.3 0.04 0.64 0.47 1.10 0.59 0.13 0.71 — 4,994 4,994 0.21 0.06 0.64 5,016 2027 0.19 0.16 1.31 1.59 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 395 395 0.02 < 0.005 0.04 397 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.22 0.18 1.72 1.72 < 0.005 0.06 0.15 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.12 — 451 451 0.02 0.02 0.15 457 2025 0.50 0.42 3.48 4.00 0.01 0.13 0.35 0.48 0.12 0.14 0.26 — 931 931 0.04 0.02 0.24 939 2026 0.46 0.39 3.13 3.71 0.01 0.12 0.09 0.20 0.11 0.02 0.13 — 827 827 0.03 0.01 0.11 831 2027 0.04 0.03 0.24 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 65.4 65.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 65.7

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)

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 10 / 49
Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.76 6.29 8.38 72.3 0.20 0.32 18.3 18.6 0.31 4.64 4.95 104 23,765 23,869 11.4 0.73 173 24,546 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.88 5.49 8.82 58.1 0.19 0.31 18.3 18.6 0.30 4.64 4.94 104 22,911 23,015 11.4 0.76 114 23,641 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.53 5.19 6.58 61.7 0.19 0.19 18.0 18.2 0.18 4.58 4.77 104 22,714 22,819 11.4 0.76 138 23,470 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.64 0.95 1.20 11.3 0.03 0.03 3.29 3.33 0.03 0.84 0.87 17.3 3,761 3,778 1.89 0.13 22.9 3,886

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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.74 1.98 4.84 64.3 0.19 0.11 18.3 18.4 0.10 4.64 4.74 — 19,407 19,407 0.55 0.58 60.9 19,655 Area 0.85 3.29 0.04 4.78 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 3,599 3,599 0.28 0.03 — 3,613 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Stationar
y

1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 11 / 49
Total 4.76 6.29 8.38 72.3 0.20 0.32 18.3 18.6 0.31 4.64 4.95 104 23,765 23,869 11.4 0.73 173 24,546 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.71 1.96 5.32 55.0 0.18 0.11 18.3 18.4 0.10 4.64 4.74 — 18,573 18,573 0.54 0.61 1.58 18,770 Area — 2.50 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 3,599 3,599 0.28 0.03 — 3,613 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Stationar
y

1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Total 3.88 5.49 8.82 58.1 0.19 0.31 18.3 18.6 0.30 4.64 4.94 104 22,911 23,015 11.4 0.76 114 23,641 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.72 1.97 5.43 57.5 0.18 0.11 18.0 18.2 0.10 4.58 4.69 — 18,798 18,798 0.54 0.62 26.3 19,021 Area 0.58 3.04 0.03 3.28 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 3,599 3,599 0.28 0.03 — 3,613 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Stationar
y

0.15 0.13 0.38 0.34 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 69.0 69.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 69.2 Total 3.53 5.19 6.58 61.7 0.19 0.19 18.0 18.2 0.18 4.58 4.77 104 22,714 22,819 11.4 0.76 138 23,470 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.50 0.36 0.99 10.5 0.03 0.02 3.29 3.31 0.02 0.84 0.86 — 3,112 3,112 0.09 0.10 4.36 3,149 Area 0.11 0.56 0.01 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.24 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 596 596 0.05 < 0.005 — 598 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 8.07 39.0 47.0 0.83 0.02 — 73.8

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 12 / 49
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.23 0.00 9.23 0.92 0.00 — 32.3 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6
Stationar
y

0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 11.5 Total 0.64 0.95 1.20 11.3 0.03 0.03 3.29 3.33 0.03 0.84 0.87 17.3 3,761 3,778 1.89 0.13 22.9 3,886

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Improvements (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.67 3.08 28.3 27.5 0.06 1.14 — 1.14 1.05 — 1.05 — 6,382 6,382 0.26 0.05 — 6,404 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.71 1.71 — 0.88 0.88 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.67 3.08 28.3 27.5 0.06 1.14 — 1.14 1.05 — 1.05 — 6,382 6,382 0.26 0.05 — 6,404 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.71 1.71 — 0.88 0.88 — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 13 / 49
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.10 0.92 8.49 8.23 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 1,911 1,911 0.08 0.02 — 1,918 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.51 0.51 — 0.26 0.26 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.20 0.17 1.55 1.50 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 316 316 0.01 < 0.005 — 317 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.09 0.09 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.25 0.21 3.24 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 581 581 0.03 0.02 2.28 590 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 51.8 Hauling 0.16 0.05 2.62 1.01 0.01 0.03 0.55 0.58 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,097 2,097 0.11 0.34 4.82 2,205 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.24 0.25 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 551 551 0.03 0.02 0.06 558 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.6 49.6 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 51.7

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 14 / 49
Hauling 0.16 0.04 2.72 1.01 0.01 0.03 0.55 0.58 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,097 2,097 0.11 0.34 0.13 2,201 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 167 167 0.01 0.01 0.29 170 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.8 14.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.5 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.83 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 628 628 0.03 0.10 0.62 659 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.7 27.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.46 2.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.56 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 104 104 0.01 0.02 0.10 109

3.3. Site Improvements (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.42 2.87 25.5 26.4 0.06 0.98 — 0.98 0.91 — 0.91 — 6,383 6,383 0.26 0.05 — 6,405 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.71 1.71 — 0.88 0.88 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.42 2.87 25.5 26.4 0.06 0.98 — 0.98 0.91 — 0.91 — 6,383 6,383 0.26 0.05 — 6,405

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 15 / 49
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.71 1.71 — 0.88 0.88 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.76 0.64 5.69 5.89 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,424 1,424 0.06 0.01 — 1,429 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.38 0.38 — 0.20 0.20 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.12 1.04 1.08 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 236 236 0.01 < 0.005 — 237 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.23 0.19 2.99 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 569 569 0.03 0.02 2.07 578 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.7 48.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 50.9 Hauling 0.16 0.03 2.53 0.98 0.01 0.03 0.55 0.58 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,060 2,060 0.11 0.32 4.78 2,164 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 16 / 49
Worker 0.25 0.23 0.21 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 540 540 0.03 0.02 0.05 547 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.7 48.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 50.8 Hauling 0.16 0.03 2.63 0.99 0.01 0.03 0.55 0.58 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,061 2,061 0.11 0.32 0.12 2,160 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 122 122 0.01 < 0.005 0.20 124 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.4 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.59 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 460 460 0.03 0.07 0.46 482 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 20.2 20.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.80 1.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.88 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 76.1 76.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 79.8

3.5. New Building Expansion (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.42 2.87 25.5 26.4 0.06 0.98 — 0.98 0.91 — 0.91 — 6,383 6,383 0.26 0.05 — 6,405 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.70 1.70 — 0.88 0.88 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 17 / 49
Off-Road
Equipment

3.42 2.87 25.5 26.4 0.06 0.98 — 0.98 0.91 — 0.91 — 6,383 6,383 0.26 0.05 — 6,405 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.70 1.70 — 0.88 0.88 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.68 1.41 12.5 13.0 0.03 0.48 — 0.48 0.44 — 0.44 — 3,135 3,135 0.13 0.03 — 3,146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.84 0.84 — 0.43 0.43 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.31 0.26 2.29 2.37 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 519 519 0.02 < 0.005 — 521 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.43 0.39 0.32 4.99 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 949 949 0.05 0.03 3.45 964 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.7 48.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 50.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 18 / 49
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.42 0.39 0.35 4.32 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 900 900 0.05 0.04 0.09 912 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.7 48.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 50.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.18 2.22 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 448 448 0.02 0.02 0.73 455 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.9 23.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 25.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 74.2 74.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 75.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.96 3.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.14 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. New Building Expansion (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.27 2.75 23.8 25.8 0.06 0.89 — 0.89 0.82 — 0.82 — 6,387 6,387 0.26 0.05 — 6,409

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 19 / 49
Dust — — — — — — 1.70 1.70 — 0.88 0.88 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.11 0.93 1.01 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 250 250 0.01 < 0.005 — 251 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 41.4 41.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.38 0.34 0.32 4.03 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 882 882 0.05 0.03 0.08 893 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.9 47.9 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 50.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 20 / 49
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.0 35.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 35.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.96 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.80 5.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.88 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Existing Building Work (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.27 2.75 23.8 25.8 0.06 0.89 — 0.89 0.82 — 0.82 — 6,387 6,387 0.26 0.05 — 6,409 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.27 2.75 23.8 25.8 0.06 0.89 — 0.89 0.82 — 0.82 — 6,387 6,387 0.26 0.05 — 6,409 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 21 / 49
Off-Road 2.21 1.85 16.0 17.4 0.04 0.60 — 0.60 0.55 — 0.55 — 4,312 4,312 0.17 0.03 — 4,327 Equipment
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.40 0.34 2.93 3.18 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 714 714 0.03 0.01 — 716 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.21 0.17 2.78 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 558 558 0.03 0.02 1.88 566 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.9 47.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 50.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.20 0.19 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 529 529 0.03 0.02 0.05 536 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.9 47.9 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 50.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.14 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 362 362 0.02 0.01 0.55 368 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.3 32.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 33.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 60.0 60.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 60.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.35 5.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.59 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 22 / 49

3.11. Existing Building Work (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.18 2.67 22.8 25.6 0.06 0.83 — 0.83 0.76 — 0.76 — 6,385 6,385 0.26 0.05 — 6,407 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 0.15 1.29 1.45 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 362 362 0.01 < 0.005 — 364 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.24 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 60.0 60.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 23 / 49
Worker 0.22 0.19 0.19 2.24 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 519 519 0.01 0.02 0.04 525 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.0 47.0 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 49.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 30.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.67 2.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.78 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.95 4.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.01 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 24 / 49
Refrigera———————————— 2,641 2,641 0.19 0.02— 2,653
ted
Parking
Lot
———————————— 74.2 74.2 0.01 < 0.005— 74.5
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 2,715 2,715 0.20 0.02— 2,728
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————— 2,641 2,641 0.19 0.02— 2,653
Parking
Lot
———————————— 74.2 74.2 0.01 < 0.005— 74.5
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 2,715 2,715 0.20 0.02— 2,728
Annual——————————————————
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————— 437 437 0.03 < 0.005— 439
Parking
Lot
———————————— 12.3 12.3 < 0.005 < 0.005— 12.3
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 450 450 0.03 < 0.005— 452

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 25 / 49

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 883 883 0.08 < 0.005 — 886 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 883 883 0.08 < 0.005 — 886 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 883 883 0.08 < 0.005 — 886 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 883 883 0.08 < 0.005 — 886 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 26 / 49
Refrigera 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 146 146 0.01 < 0.005 — 147 ted
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 146 146 0.01 < 0.005 — 147

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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 2.36 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.85 0.79 0.04 4.78 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 Total 0.85 3.29 0.04 4.78 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 2.36 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 27 / 49
Architect
Coatings
— 0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 2.50 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.43 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.11 0.10 0.01 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.24 Total 0.11 0.56 0.01 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.24

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) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 28 / 49
User — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Defined
Industrial
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.07 39.0 47.0 0.83 0.02 — 73.8
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.07 39.0 47.0 0.83 0.02 — 73.8

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 29 / 49
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 30 / 49
Refrigera — — — — — — — — — — — 9.23 0.00 9.23 0.92 0.00 — 32.3 ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.23 0.00 9.23 0.92 0.00 — 32.3

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 31 / 49
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6

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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 32 / 49
Equipme
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generato
r

1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Total 1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generato
r

1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Total 1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generato
r

0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 11.5 Total 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 11.5

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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 33 / 49
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) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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)

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 34 / 49
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 35 / 49
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Site Improvements Site Preparation 8/1/2024 4/24/2025 5.00 191 250 New Building Expansion Grading 4/25/2025 1/20/2026 5.00 193 250 Existing Building Work Building Construction 1/21/2026 1/29/2027 5.00 268 351

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 36 / 49

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 Site Improvements Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Improvements Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Improvements Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Improvements Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Site Improvements Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 376 0.38 Site Improvements Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Improvements Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Site Improvements Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Site Improvements Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Site Improvements Surfacing Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 399 0.30 Site Improvements Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50 Site Improvements Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
New Building Expansion Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 New Building Expansion Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
New Building Expansion Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 New Building Expansion Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 New Building Expansion Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 376 0.38 New Building Expansion Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 New Building Expansion Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 New Building Expansion Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 New Building Expansion Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 37 / 49
New Building Expansion Surfacing Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 399 0.30 New Building Expansion Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50 New Building Expansion Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Existing Building Work Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Existing Building Work Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Existing Building Work Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Existing Building Work Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Existing Building Work Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 376 0.38 Existing Building Work Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Existing Building Work Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Existing Building Work Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Existing Building Work Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Existing Building Work Surfacing Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 399 0.30 Existing Building Work Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50 Existing Building Work Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Improvements — — — —
Site Improvements Worker 60.0 12.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Improvements Vendor 2.00 7.75 HHDT,MHDT
Site Improvements Hauling 29.7 20.0 HHDT
Site Improvements Onsite truck — — HHDT

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 38 / 49
New Building Expansion — — — —
New Building Expansion Worker 100 12.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
New Building Expansion Vendor 2.00 7.75 HHDT,MHDT
New Building Expansion Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
New Building Expansion Onsite truck — — HHDT
Existing Building Work — — — —
Existing Building Work Worker 60.0 12.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Existing Building Work Vendor 2.00 7.75 HHDT,MHDT
Existing Building Work Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Existing Building Work 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)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Improvements — 45,440 95.5 0.00 —
New Building Expansion — — 96.5 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 39 / 49
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 1.57 100%
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 453 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 Total all Land Uses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,586 8,586 8,586 3,133,794

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 40 / 49

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 0.00 165,000 55,000 4,093

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) Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 2,127,187 453 0.0330 0.0040 2,755,945 Parking Lot 59,756 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 453 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) Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 25,437,500 3,093,290
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 41 / 49
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 103 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
User Defined Industrial 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage User Defined 150 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0

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 Emergency Generator Diesel 1.00 1.00 50.0 300 0.73

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 42 / 49

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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 43 / 49
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.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 17.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 3.41 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 2 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.

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 44 / 49
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.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 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 65.7
AQ-PM 89.6
AQ-DPM 90.4

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 45 / 49
Drinking Water 51.1
Lead Risk Housing 17.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 80.0
Traffic 80.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 17.1
Groundwater 2.11
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 71.1
Impaired Water Bodies 51.2
Solid Waste 72.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 19.1
Cardio-vascular 35.7
Low Birth Weights 17.7
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 59.8
Housing 60.6
Linguistic 84.5
Poverty 48.9
Unemployment 43.1

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 68.08674451

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 46 / 49
Employed 86.78301039
Median HI 76.47889131
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 57.29500834
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 78.10855896
Transportation —
Auto Access 66.18760426
Active commuting 32.64468112
Social —
2-parent households 11.16386501
Voting 29.88579494
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 80.803285
Park access 13.98691133
Retail density 35.53188759
Supermarket access 38.80405492
Tree canopy 78.09572693
Housing —
Homeownership 95.57295008
Housing habitability 80.05902733
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 92.04414218 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 41.4731169
Uncrowded housing 67.80443988
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 50.93032208
Arthritis 0.0

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 47 / 49
Asthma ER Admissions 83.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 96.8
Cognitively Disabled 72.6
Physically Disabled 68.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 55.9
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 94.9
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 90.9
Elderly 33.4
English Speaking 25.4

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 48 / 49
Foreign-born 86.9
Outdoor Workers 93.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 57.4
Traffic Density 81.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 39.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 35.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 56.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 64.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No 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.

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco Detailed Report, 5/22/2024 49 / 49

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Taken from client data.

Construction schedule based on January 2027 OY.

Construction: Trips and VMT Vendor Trips adjusted based on CalEEMod defaults for Building Construction and number of days for Site Preparation, Grading, and Building Construction.

Per client data, there will be 30 workers during site improvements, 50 workers during new building expansion, and 30 workers during existing building work. Additionally, there will be 1 vendor truck per day.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Taken from client data.

Standard 8 hours work days.

Operations: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Operations: Refrigerants As of 1 January 2022, new commercial refrigeration equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater. Further, R-404A (the CalEEMod default) is unacceptable for new supermarket and cold storage systems as of 1 January 2019 and 2023, respectively.

Operations: Vehicle Data Trip characteristics taken from VMT assessment and ITE 10th edition rates.

Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger Car Mix estimated based on CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, MCY). Truck Fleet Mix based on 2, 3 and 4 axle trucks

13206-02 AQ & GHG Assessment

ATTACHMENT B

CALEEMOD OPERATIONAL LSTS EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 1 / 32
13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, 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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 2 / 32

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

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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 3 / 32

5. Activity Data

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

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 4 / 32

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 5 / 32

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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 6 / 32

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.80
Precipitation (days) 18.8
Location 20701 Currier Rd, Walnut, CA 91789, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Industry
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5024
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility City of Industry
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.23

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
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
110 1000sqft 2.53 110,000 220,562 — — PC

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 7 / 32
Parking Lot 174 Space 1.57 0.00 0.00 — — —
User Defined
Industrial
110 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — Trucks

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

2. Emissions Summary

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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.59 4.88 3.67 9.30 0.01 0.21 0.04 0.26 0.21 0.01 0.22 104 4,440 4,544 10.9 0.17 112 4,979 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.74 4.09 3.64 4.74 0.01 0.20 0.04 0.25 0.20 0.01 0.21 104 4,418 4,523 10.9 0.17 112 4,957 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.23 3.62 1.25 5.39 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.09 104 3,976 4,080 10.9 0.16 112 4,512 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.22 0.66 0.23 0.98 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 17.3 658 676 1.80 0.03 18.6 747

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)

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 8 / 32
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.58 0.57 0.14 1.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 82.1 82.1 0.03 0.02 0.13 87.7 Area 0.85 3.29 0.04 4.78 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 3,599 3,599 0.28 0.03 — 3,613 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Stationar
y

1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Total 2.59 4.88 3.67 9.30 0.01 0.21 0.04 0.26 0.21 0.01 0.22 104 4,440 4,544 10.9 0.17 112 4,979 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.58 0.56 0.15 1.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 80.4 80.4 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 86.3 Area — 2.50 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 3,599 3,599 0.28 0.03 — 3,613 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Stationar
y

1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Total 1.74 4.09 3.64 4.74 0.01 0.20 0.04 0.25 0.20 0.01 0.21 104 4,418 4,523 10.9 0.17 112 4,957 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.42 0.41 0.11 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 59.2 59.2 0.02 0.01 0.04 63.4 Area 0.58 3.04 0.03 3.28 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 3,599 3,599 0.28 0.03 — 3,613

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 9 / 32
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Stationar
y

0.15 0.13 0.38 0.34 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 69.0 69.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 69.2 Total 1.23 3.62 1.25 5.39 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.09 104 3,976 4,080 10.9 0.16 112 4,512 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.80 9.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.5 Area 0.11 0.56 0.01 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.24 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 596 596 0.05 < 0.005 — 598 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 8.07 39.0 47.0 0.83 0.02 — 73.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.23 0.00 9.23 0.92 0.00 — 32.3 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6
Stationar
y

0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 11.5 Total 0.22 0.66 0.23 0.98 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 17.3 658 676 1.80 0.03 18.6 747

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) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 10 / 32
Refrigera 0.37 0.36 0.08 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 51.3 51.3 0.02 0.01 0.08 54.8 ted
Warehou
Rail
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User
Defined
Industrial

0.21 0.21 0.06 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.8 30.8 0.01 0.01 0.05 32.9 Total 0.58 0.57 0.14 1.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 82.1 82.1 0.03 0.02 0.13 87.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.37 0.36 0.09 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 50.2 50.2 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 53.9 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User
Defined
Industrial

0.21 0.20 0.06 0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.2 30.2 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 32.4 Total 0.58 0.56 0.15 1.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 80.4 80.4 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 86.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.05 0.05 0.01 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.11 6.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.56 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User
Defined
Industrial

0.03 0.03 0.01 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.68 3.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.94 Total 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.80 9.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.5

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 11 / 32

4.2. Energy

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,641 2,641 0.19 0.02 — 2,653
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 74.2 74.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 74.5
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,715 2,715 0.20 0.02 — 2,728 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,641 2,641 0.19 0.02 — 2,653
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 74.2 74.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 74.5
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,715 2,715 0.20 0.02 — 2,728

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 12 / 32
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 437 437 0.03 < 0.005 — 439
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 12.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.3 User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 450 450 0.03 < 0.005 — 452

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 883 883 0.08 < 0.005 — 886 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 883 883 0.08 < 0.005 — 886 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 13 / 32
Refrigera
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 883 883 0.08 < 0.005 — 886 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.08 0.04 0.74 0.62 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 883 883 0.08 < 0.005 — 886 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.01 0.01 0.14 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 146 146 0.01 < 0.005 — 147 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 User
Defined
Industrial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 146 146 0.01 < 0.005 — 147

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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 2.36 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 14 / 32
Architect
Coatings
— 0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.85 0.79 0.04 4.78 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 Total 0.85 3.29 0.04 4.78 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 19.7 19.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 2.36 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 2.50 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.43 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.11 0.10 0.01 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.24 Total 0.11 0.56 0.01 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.24

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)

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 15 / 32
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 48.7 235 284 5.02 0.12 — 446 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.07 39.0 47.0 0.83 0.02 — 73.8

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 16 / 32
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.07 39.0 47.0 0.83 0.02 — 73.8

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 17 / 32
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 55.7 0.00 55.7 5.57 0.00 — 195 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.23 0.00 9.23 0.92 0.00 — 32.3
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
User
Defined
Industrial
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.23 0.00 9.23 0.92 0.00 — 32.3

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 18 / 32
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 112
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Refrigera
ted
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6

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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 19 / 32
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generato
r

1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Total 1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generato
r

1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Total 1.08 0.98 2.75 2.51 < 0.005 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 504 504 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 505 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Emergen
cy
Generato
r

0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 11.5 Total 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 11.5

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 20 / 32

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R 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) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 21 / 32
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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 22 / 32
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 23 / 32
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
151 13.0 5.17 40,236 40.7 3.50 1.40 10,864
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
User Defined
Industrial

82.5 7.15 2.86 22,031 22.3 1.93 0.77 5,948

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

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 0.00 165,000 55,000 4,093

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) Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 2,127,187 453 0.0330 0.0040 2,755,945

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 24 / 32
Parking Lot 59,756 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 453 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) Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 25,437,500 3,093,290
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 103 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
User Defined Industrial 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage User Defined 150 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 25 / 32

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 Emergency Generator Diesel 1.00 1.00 50.0 300 0.73

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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 26 / 32

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.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 17.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 3.41 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 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 27 / 32
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.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 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

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 28 / 32

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 65.7
AQ-PM 89.6
AQ-DPM 90.4
Drinking Water 51.1
Lead Risk Housing 17.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 80.0
Traffic 80.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 17.1
Groundwater 2.11
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 71.1
Impaired Water Bodies 51.2
Solid Waste 72.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 19.1
Cardio-vascular 35.7
Low Birth Weights 17.7
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 59.8
Housing 60.6

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 29 / 32
Linguistic 84.5
Poverty 48.9
Unemployment 43.1

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 68.08674451
Employed 86.78301039
Median HI 76.47889131
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 57.29500834
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 78.10855896
Transportation —
Auto Access 66.18760426
Active commuting 32.64468112
Social —
2-parent households 11.16386501
Voting 29.88579494
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 80.803285
Park access 13.98691133
Retail density 35.53188759
Supermarket access 38.80405492
Tree canopy 78.09572693

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 30 / 32
Housing —
Homeownership 95.57295008
Housing habitability 80.05902733
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 92.04414218 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 41.4731169
Uncrowded housing 67.80443988
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 50.93032208
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 83.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 96.8
Cognitively Disabled 72.6
Physically Disabled 68.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 55.9
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 94.9
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 31 / 32
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 90.9
Elderly 33.4
English Speaking 25.4
Foreign-born 86.9
Outdoor Workers 93.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 57.4
Traffic Density 81.6
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 39.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 35.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 56.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 64.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No

13206 - 20701 Currier Rd Sysco (Operational LSTs) Detailed Report, 5/23/2024 32 / 32
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 Taken from client data.

Construction schedule based on January 2027 OY.

Construction: Trips and VMT Vendor Trips adjusted based on CalEEMod defaults for Building Construction and number of days for Site Preparation, Grading, and Building Construction.

Per client data, there will be 30 workers during site improvements, 50 workers during new building expansion, and 30 workers during existing building work. Additionally, there will be 1 vendor truck per day.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Taken from client data.

Standard 8 hours work days.

Operations: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
Operations: Refrigerants As of 1 January 2022, new commercial refrigeration equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater. Further, R-404A (the CalEEMod default) is unacceptable for new supermarket and cold storage systems as of 1 January 2019 and 2023, respectively.

Operations: Vehicle Data Trip characteristics taken from VMT assessment and ITE 10th edition rates.

Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger Car Mix estimated based on CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, MCY). Truck Fleet Mix based on 2, 3 and 4 axle trucks.

Circulation Draft
City of Industry
Sysco Los Angeles Facility Expansion
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 15, 2024

APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Sysco
Facility Expansion

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Proposed Sysco Facility Expansion
20701 Currier Road
Walnut, California 91789
PSI Project No. 0066‐1854
PREPARED FOR:

Sysco Corporation
1390 Enclave Parkway
Houston, Texas 77077
July 8, 2022
BY:

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
11980 Telegraph Road, Suite 104
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Phone: (714) 484–8600

Professional Services Industries, Inc.
11980 Telegraph Road, Suite 104
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Office – (714) 484‐8600
www.intertek.com/bulding
July 8, 2022
Sysco Corporation
1390 Enclave Parkway
Houston, Texas 77077
Attn:   Michael McLean
[email protected]
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

PROPOSED SYSCO FACILITY EXPANSION
20701 CURRIER ROAD
WALNUT, CA 91789
PSI Project No. 0066‐1854
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek company, is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Engineering Report for the above referenced project.   This report includes the results from the field exploration and laboratory testing along with recommendations for use in preparation of the appropriate design and construction documents for this project.

PSI appreciates the opportunity to provide this Geotechnical Engineering Report and looks forward to continuing participation during the design and construction phases of this project.  PSI also has great interest in providing materials testing and inspection services during the construction of this project and will be glad to meet with you to further discuss how we can be of assistance as the project advances.

If there are questions pertaining to this report, or if PSI may be of further service, please contact us at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted,
Professional ServicesIndustries, Inc.

Douglas T. Abernathy, PE, GE   Britton W. Gentry
Senior Project Engineer   Principal Consultant
[email protected]    [email protected] CC:  Cooper Crawford (PSI – NCG)

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.

1.0 Project Information.....................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Authorization..............................................................................................................................1

1.2 Site Location............................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Project Description..................................................................................................................................1

1.4 Previous Geotechnical Studies...............................................................................................................1

2.0 Regional and Site Geology ..........................................................................................................................3

2.1 Regional Geology ....................................................................................................................................3

2.2 Site Geology.............................................................................................................................................3

2.3 Soil Survey ...............................................................................................................................................3

2.4 Regional Seismicity..................................................................................................................................3

3.0 Site and Subsurface Conditions..................................................................................................................4

3.1 Site Description .......................................................................................................................................4

3.2 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Program...............................................................................6

3.3 Subsurface Conditions............................................................................................................................7

3.4 Groundwater Information......................................................................................................................8

4.0 Geotechnical Engineering Analysis.............................................................................................................9

4.1 Liquefaction Estimates............................................................................................................................9

4.2 Expansive Soils ........................................................................................................................................9

4.3 Corrosion Potential .................................................................................................................................9

5.0 Geotechnical Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................ 11

5.1 Geotechnical Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 11

5.2 Site Preparation.................................................................................................................................... 11

5.3 Earthwork ............................................................................................................................................. 11

5.4 Foundations.......................................................................................................................................... 14

5.5 Floor Slabs ............................................................................................................................................ 15

5.6 Retaining walls ..................................................................................................................................... 16

5.7 Drainage Considerations...................................................................................................................... 17

5.8 Landscaping Considerations................................................................................................................ 18

5.9 Pavement Design ................................................................................................................................. 18

5.10 Plan Review and Construction Observation....................................................................................... 20

6.0 Geotechnical Risk and Report Limitations.............................................................................................. 21

7.0 References................................................................................................................................................ 22

FIGURES 1.  Site Vicinity Map

2.  Approximate Exploration Location Plan
APPENDIX A Field Exploration & Laboratory Testing Program APPENDIX B Liquefaction Evaluation

ii

INDEX OF TABLES
Page No.

Table 3.1: Ground Motion Values...........................................................................................................................5 Table 3.2: Field Exploration Summary ....................................................................................................................6 Table 4.1: Subsoil Corrosivity Characteristics.........................................................................................................9 Table 4.2: Requirements for Concrete Exposed to Sulfate................................................................................. 10 Table 5.1:  Compaction Criteria and Testing Frequency ..................................................................................... 13 Table 5.2:  Pavement Design Parameters............................................................................................................ 19

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek company, has completed a field exploration and geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Sysco Facility Expansion in Walnut, California at the address referenced above.  This work was performed in general accordance with PSI’s proposal (0066‐368587)signed March 19, 2022.

1.2 SITE LOCATION
Currently the site consists of an existing Sysco food processing facility located north of Currier Road and east of South Lemon Avenue in Walnut, California at the addressreferenced above.  The site is bounded by South San Jose Creek to the north, Currier Road to the south, South Lemon Avenue to the west, and other light industrial and commercial developments to the east.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the provided site plan (CP‐01, 12/17/21), the proposed development consists of adding single‐story buildings in various areas, mostly east of the main warehouse.   These proposed buildings consist of a proposed cold dock (24,535 square feet), proposed offices(1,389 sf), proposed freezer expansion (41,207 sf), proposed battery charging building (4,145 sf), proposed dry dock (6,987 sf), and proposed dry warehouse (26,422 sf).  Minor buildings will consist of a guard‐shack toward the southeast corner and a service bay toward the west end of the property.  Pavements are proposed to be replaced toward the northern and eastern sides of the main warehouse.  Bio‐retention areas may be added to the northeast corner of the property.

Grading plans were not provided; PSI has anticipated that ±2 feet of cut/fill may be required.  Proposed loadings are anticipated to include column loadings up to 120 kips, wall loadings up to 6 kips/ft, and floorslab loadings to include 12 kip point column loads and 400 psf general loads.

The geotechnical recommendations presented below are based on the available project information, proposed structure locations, and the subsurface materials encountered during the field investigation.

Should any of the above information or design assumptions be inconsistent with the planned construction, it is requested that you contact us immediately to allow us to make any necessary modifications to this report.

PSI will not be held responsible for changes to the project if not provided the opportunity to review the information and provide modifications to our recommendations.

1.4 PREVIOUSGEOTECHNICAL STUDIES

1.4.1 PSI(11/30/2016)
Previously, PSI performed a pavement study in 2016 at this site, west of the main warehouse and toward Lemon Avenue (PSI Project No. 0559‐1932, 11/30/16).  Seven borings were advanced to depths of 6 to 11½ feet below ground surface (bgs).  These borings encountered mainly stiff sandy silt near the ground surface.

Medium stiff to very stiff silty clay was encountered below this surficial silt layer at depths ranging from approximately 1 to 9½ feet bgs.  The clay had an expansion indices of 17 and 66 (very low to medium).  R‐ values were tested at two locations resulting in values of 11 and 24.  Groundwater was not encountered in these seven borings which extended to depths of about 11½ feet bgs.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

1.4.2 SCG(4/18/2008)
Southern California Geotechnical (SCG) investigated the site for a cooler expansion as documented in their report dated April 18, 2008.  This cooler expansion is located in the northeast corner of the main facility and anticipated maximum column loadings of 50 kips with wall loadings of 2 to 4 kips per linear foot.  Their investigation included drilling five soil borings to depths of 15 to 46 feet bgs.  They report encountering undocumented fillsoilsto depths of about 2½ to 3 feet bgs with possible fillsoils extending to depths of about 2½ to 5 ½ feet bgs.   Soils were described as alluvial silts, sands, and clays extending down to depths of approximately 12 to 42 feet bgs.  Below this alluvium theirinvestigation encountered sandstone and siltstone bedrock of the Monterey Formation.  Groundwater was measured at a depth of approximately 19 to 20 feet bgs.  A sample of near‐surface soils was tested for expansion and resulted in very low expansion potential (EI=18).

A liquefaction evaluation was performed using a PGA of 0.50g and a magnitude of 6.8 along with a historic high groundwater depth of 19 feet bgs.  This evaluation was based on the 2007 California Building Code.  Their evaluation included use of “Chinese Criteria” which has since become outdated.  Based on their evaluation, no liquefaction of the site soils was estimated.

1.4.3 SCG(7/16/2009)
Southern California Geotechnical (SCG) investigated the site for a meeting center expansion as documented in their report dated July 16, 2009.  This meeting center expansion is located in the southside of the main facility and anticipated maximum column loads of up to 50 kips with wall loadings up to 2 to 4 kips per linear foot.  Their investigation included drilling three soil borings to depths of 20 to 50 feet bgs.  They report encountering undocumented fill soils in all borings to depths of approximately 3 to 6½ feet bgs.  Below this fill they encountered alluvial soils to the termination of their investigation at 50 feet bgs.  Groundwater was located at a depth of approximately 30 feet bgs.  A near‐surface soilsample wastested for expansion potential and indicated an expansion index of 77 (medium).

A liquefaction evaluation was performed using a PGA of 0.50g and a magnitude of 6.8 along with a historic high groundwater depth of 19 feet bgs.  This evaluation was based on the 2007 California Building Code.  Their evaluation included use of “Chinese Criteria” which hassince become outdated.  Based on their evaluation, a liquefaction potential was estimated to exist at depths of 22 to 27 feet bgs resulting in approximately 1 inch of seismic settlement.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

2.0 REGIONAL AND SITE GEOLOGY

2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The site is located within the Peninsular Range physiographic province of California which contains the Los Angeles Basin.  This province consists of a series of rangesseparated by northwest trending valley subparallel to faults branching from the San Andreas Fault (CGS, 2002).

2.2 SITE GEOLOGY
Based on geologic mapping of the area by Dibblee and Minch (2002), the site geology consists of alluvial deposits consisting mostly of gravel and sand of valley areas.  Borings at the site encountered sandstone and siltstone/claystone of the Monterey formation below alluvium.

2.3 SOIL SURVEY
Based on a USDA Soil Survey Report of the area, the site is generally underlain by urban land (Ballona‐Typic Xerorthents Complex) consisting of clay loam and clay.  This soil unit is reported to have a low potential for concrete corrosion and is not rated for potential of steel corrosion.

2.4 REGIONAL SEISMICITY
The project site is located in Southern California, which has undergone a complex multiphase structural history and remains an active tectonic region with documented historic earthquakes.   Generally, the seismicity within California can be attributed to faulting due to regional tectonic movement.  This includes the San Andreas Fault and othersub‐parallelstrike‐slip faults, as well as normal and thrust faulting within the State. The area of the subject site is considered seismically active.  Seismic hazards within the site can be attributed to potential ground shaking resulting from earthquake events along nearby or more distant faulting.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 SITEDESCRIPTION
Based on our site visits and fieldwork, the property consists of an existing Sysco food processing facility.  This development consists of large warehouse in the center of the property surrounded by asphalt parking lots and drive aisles with concrete dolly pads.  Several one‐story buildings are located throughout the property.

A solar panel area exists in the southeast corner.  A site vicinity map is on Figure 1.

3.1.1 TOPOGRAPHY
Based on the San Dimas Quadrangle (2021), the site has an elevation of approximately EL 530 feet above Mean Sea Level.   Surface water drainage appears to flow to the west toward San Jose Creek Diversion Channel.

3.1.2 FAULTING
According to the Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 (revised 1994) faults have been classified as active faults which show apparent movement during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time).  Based on California Geologic Survey (CGS) information the site is not located within an Alquist‐Priolo faultzone, and no faults are known to traverse the site.  Based on the CGS Fault Activity Map, active faults that may affect the project include the Whittier Fault (located approximately 4.8 miles southwest of the site) and the potentially active San Jose Fault (located approximately 2.2 miles northwest of the site).

3.1.3 LURCHING AND SHALLOW GROUND RUPTURE
Evidence of active fault rupture was not observed within the explored areas of the site at the time of our subsurface exploration.  PSI did not observe mapped faults crossing the site in readily available resources.  As such, the potential for ground rupture from faulting at the site is considered to be low.

3.1.4 LIQUEFACTION
Soil liquefaction and seismically‐induced settlement typically occur in saturated loose to medium dense cohesionlesssoils; and in clays and silts with low plasticity indexes and with moistures near their liquid limits, due to cyclic softening where the groundwater is relatively shallow (within 50 feet of the ground surface).

During an earthquake, ground shaking causes a rapid increase in the porewater pressure within the soil mass under undrained conditions.  The generation of excess porewater pressures causes a corresponding decrease in the soil’s effective stress, which can result in a sudden loss of soil bearing strength and ground surface settlement within the liquefied (and softened) soil layers.  Soil liquefaction potential is generally affected by soil types, mineral contents, ground acceleration, duration of shaking, and frequency content of the earthquake ground motion, among other factors.

According to the California Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San Dimas Quadrangle (SHZR‐032), historical high groundwater depths are reported at about 20 feet bgs.  Based on the CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation for the San Dimas Quadrangle (1999), the site is delineated as having potential for liquefaction.

Due to this delineation, a liquefaction evaluation was performed for the proposed habitable buildings and is included in the scope of this report.

3.1.5 LATERAL SPREADING
Due to the anticipated liquefaction potential at this site, the potential for lateral spreading or surficial disturbance (sand boils, grabens, etc.) was also estimated.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

3.1.6 TSUNAMIS AND SEICHES
Inundation by tsunamis (seismic or "tidal waves") are not likely to be considered a significant threat to the subjectsite due the site elevation and distance to the ocean.  Based on there being no large, confined bodies of water near the site, the site is also not considered subject to seiches.

3.1.7 LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE STABILITY
Seismically induced landsliding is not considered a hazard on or adjacentto the projectsite due to the absence of significant, natural steep slopes in or around the project area.  We do not anticipate that the proposed structures will add loadings to the walls supporting the sides of the San Jose Creek Diversion Channel to the north.

3.1.8 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
PSI has employed the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), the locally adopted version of the International Building Code, 2018 edition.  We anticipate that the project is governed by the International Building Code (IBC), 2018 edition.  As part of this code, the design ofstructures must consider dynamic forcesresulting from seismic events.  These forces are dependent upon the magnitude of the earthquake event as well as the properties of the soils that underlie the site.

As part of the procedure to evaluate seismic forces, the code requiresthe evaluation of the Seismic Site Class, which categorizes the site based upon the characteristics of the subsurface profile within the upper 100 feet of the ground surface.  Our CPT probes extended to maximum depths of approximately 60 feet bgs, but to define the Site Class for this project, we have interpreted the results of probes advanced within the project site and estimated appropriate soil properties below the base of the probes to a depth of 100 feet as permitted by the code.   The average shear wave velocity in the upper 100 feet of the soil column was estimated to be approximately 814 feet per second at the CPT‐5 location.

Based upon our CPT shear wave velocity measurements, the subsurface conditions at the site are consistent with the characteristics of a Site Class “D” (stiff soil) as defined in Chapter 20.3‐1 of the ASCE 7‐16.  The associated probabilistic ground acceleration values and site coefficients for the general site area were obtained from the USGS geohazards web page (https://seismicmaps.org/) using the ASCE 7‐16 option and are presented in the table below.

TABLE 3.1:GROUND MOTION VALUES
Period (sec) Mapped MCE Spectral
Response Acceleration (g) Site Coefficients
Adjusted MCER
Spectral Response
Acceleration (g)
Design Spectral
Response
Acceleration (g)

0.2 Ss 1.781 Fa 1 SMs 1.781 SDs 1.187

1.0 S1 0.628 Fv * SM1 * SD1 *
2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 yearsfor Latitude, Longitude: 34.0089°, ‐117.8535° MCER = Maximum Considered Earthquake
* See 11.4.8 in ASCE 7‐16
The Site Coefficientsreferring to ASCE 7‐16 Section 11.4.8 require the structural engineerto apply appropriate calculations as needed.   Design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing justification’s building codes and standard practices of the Structural Engineering Association of California.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

In accordance with ASCE 7‐16, Chapter 11, for a site with S1>0.2, the Fa value is governed by Section 11.4.8.

Section 11.4.8 requires a ground motion hazard analysis be performed for structures with seismic isolation elements or damping systems on all sites having S1>0.2.  Section 11.4.8 includes an exception where ground motion hazard analyses “is not required for structures other than seismically isolated structures and structures with dampening systems where” the seismic response coefficient of the structure (Chapter 12) meets specific requirements.  This report is based on no seismic isolation elements or dampening systems being installed and exceptions can be applied.

3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Prior to initiation of field drilling activities, the proposed construction area was marked with white paint and DigAlert was contacted a minimum of 48 hours priorto beginning work to locate any potential buried utilities.

The DigAlert identification number for the utility locate request was #A21100649 and A221100651.

Additionally, PSI subcontracted a private utility location service to verify that the proposed boring locations were clear of subsurface utilities.  Prior to drilling, PSI also obtained a Well/Exploration Permit (SR0291700) from the Los Angeles County Environmental Health Department.

To evaluate soil conditions at the subject site, PSI advanced 11 geotechnical soil borings and five Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) probes.   The borings were drilled with a truck‐mounted CME‐75 drill rig, using hollow‐stem auger drilling methods.  The CPT probes were advanced using a truck‐mounted, 30‐ton CPT rig.

The exploration design element, exploration type, approximate exploration depth, and total approximate footage are summarized in Table 3.2 below.  Locations ofthe soil borings and CPT probes are shown on Figure

2. TABLE 3.2: FIELD EXPLORATION SUMMARY
Design Element Exploration
Type
Number of
Explorations
Exploration
Depth (ft)
Total Footage
(ft)
Cold Dock and Offices
Soil Boring 1 31
66 CPTs 2 16+19
Freezer Expansion CPTs 2 60 60
Dry Dock and Battery Charging Building   Soil Boring 1 31 31 Dry Warehouse CPT 1 60 60
Service Bay
Soil Boring 1 31
64 CPT 1 33
Bio‐Retention Area Soil Borings 2 21+21 42
Pavement Areas Soil Borings 6 6 36
TOTAL: 16 ‐‐‐  359
The boring and CPT probe locations were selected by PSI personnel and located in the field based on existing site features. However, elevations of the ground surface at the boring and probe locations were not provided and should be surveyed by others prior to construction.  The references to elevations of various subsurface strata are based on depths below existing grade at the time of drilling/probing.

Boring sampling procedures were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM methods (ASTM D1586 and ASTM D3550).  Samples were identified in the field, placed in sealed containers, and transported to the laboratory for further classification and testing.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

During drilling field activities, the encountered subsurface conditions were observed, logged, and visually classified (in general accordance with ASTM D2488/D2487).  Field notes were maintained to summarize soil types and descriptions, water levels, changes in subsurface conditions, and drilling conditions.

PSI supplemented the drilling field exploration with a laboratory testing program to determine additional engineering characteristics of the subsurface soils encountered.   The laboratory testing program was conducted in general accordance with applicable ASTM and Caltrans Test Methods, and is included in Appendix A.  Portions of samples not altered or consumed by laboratory testing will be discarded 30 days from the date shown on this report.

The CPT probes were performed in accordance with ASTM D5778.  CPT is an in‐situ testing method used to determine the geotechnical engineering properties of soils and to delineate soil lithology.  During a CPT sounding, the electric cone (tip angle 60°) and the sounding rods are pushed continuously into the ground.

Intermittent measurements of the cone resistance (qt), sleeve friction (fs), and pore pressure (u) are measured and recorded by the electric cone while it is being pushed into the ground.  The measurements from a CPT can be used to correlate a multitude of geotechnical parameters, including:
 Approximate Soil Type
 Undrained shear strength (Su)
 Effective friction angle (φ’, degree)
 Coefficient of consolidation (Cv, cm2
/sec)
 Over‐consolidation Ratio (OCR)
CPT data can be used in various geotechnical analyses including soil behavior type, soil bearing capacity, estimated settlement, liquefaction settlement, lateral spread, foundation‐design criteria, slope stability, and seismic site class.

Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDTs) were conducted at several locations to measure equilibrium water pressure at the time of the CPT sounding.  Asthe conditions are anticipated to be hydrostatic, the equilibrium water pressure can be used to determine the approximate depth of the groundwater table.  Seismic shear wave velocities weremeasured at 3‐footintervalsin CPT‐3/3A and CPT‐5 to characterize the seismic site class.

The CPT data is included in Appendix A.

Borings and CPT probe holes advanced deeper than 10 feet bgs were backfilled with cement grout, in accordance with the Los Angeles County permit.  County inspections were performed onsite by Mr. Yonas Taye.  Borings drilled to 10 feet bgs and shallower were backfilled with soil cuttings.  Borings and CPT probe holes were patched to match the existing surface conditions.

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The results of the field and laboratory testing indicate generally encountering various layers of stiff to hard silty clay,sandy silt, and silt along with layers of medium dense to very dense silty sand and sand to depths of approximately 60 feet bgs.  Layers of medium stiff silts and clays along with loose sands were also observed.

Harder (denser) layers and exploration refusal wasreached atsome of the northern locations[B1@31½ feet, C1@33 feet, C3/3A@19 feet, B5@7 feet, B8@4½ feet, and B11@16½ feet bgs which may consist of bedrock of the Monterey formation.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

The exploration logs included in Appendix A should be reviewed for specific information at individual exploration locations.  The logsinclude soil descriptions,stratifications, locations ofthe samples, and field and laboratory test data.  The descriptions provided on the logs only represent the conditions at that actual exploration location;the stratificationsrepresentthe approximate boundaries between subsurfacematerials.

The actual transitions between strata may be more gradual and less distinct.  Variations will occur and should be expected across the site.

3.4 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION
Groundwater was generally encountered at depths of 15.8 to 28.4 feet bgs in our explorations extending to maximum depths of 60 feet bgs.   Possible perched groundwater appeared to be encountered at probe location C5 at a depth of approximately 13 feet bgs.  In general, groundwater levels appear to be shallower toward the San Jose Creek Diversion Channel.

According to the California Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San Dimas Quadrangle (SHZR‐032), historical high groundwater depths are reported at approximately 20 feet bgs.  Based on the California Department of Water Resources database, groundwater depths near the site area appear to be below depths of approximately 35 feet.  As such, groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed construction.  It is possible, however, that transient, saturated ground conditions at shallower depths could develop at a later time during periods of heavy precipitation, landscape watering, leaking water lines, or other unforeseen causes.  Variations in groundwater levels should be expected seasonally, annually, and from location to location.

The groundwater levels presented in this report were measured at the time of PSI field activities.   The contractor should determine the actual groundwater levels at the site before construction activities.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

4.1 LIQUEFACTION ESTIMATES
A liquefaction evaluation has been performed for this site using CPT data and an estimated PGAm of 0.83g, a mean magnitude earthquake of 6.74, and a historic high groundwater table of 20 feet bgs.  This analysis was performed using the GeoLogismiki CPeT‐IT and CLiq software.  Liquefaction estimates indicate that various layers of susceptible soils between depths of roughly 20 to 27 feet bgs and 41 to 50 feet bgs may liquefy during a major earthquake.  Ifsuch liquefaction were to occur, based on the design earthquake, itis estimated that less than 1 inch of seismic settlement may occur below the investigation area.  The general area can be expected to experience such movements; however, differential seismic settlements may be estimated as being roughly half of the total seismic settlement.  Surficial disturbances such as lateral spreading and sand boils are not expected to occur due to the limited liquefaction potential at depth and the non‐liquefiable layers above.  See Appendix B for the liquefaction evaluation.

4.2 EXPANSIVE SOILS
The expansion index (potential) of near‐surface clayey soil (from borings B4 & B10) was measured asranging from 24 to 53 (Low to Medium).  Previous testing onsite resulted in expansion indices of 17 to 77 (Very Low to Medium).  Following site grading, testing of site soils should be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to confirm the basis of these recommendations.  Depending upon the distribution of soil types and expansion/swell characteristics, differing design recommendations may be developed to better suit the types of conditions present at the site.

4.3 CORROSION POTENTIAL
Both metal and concrete elements in contact with soil are subject to corrosion or degradation due to the chemical activity of the soil.  Therefore, buried metal and concrete elementsshould be designed to resist this chemical activity.  Soil samples recovered from the borings were evaluated for the corrosivity characteristics of the subsoils.  A soil sample was submitted to an analytical lab to determine the Sulfate, Chloride, and pH characteristics.  The test results of the laboratory testing are presented in the following table.

TABLE 4.1: SUBSOIL CORROSIVITY CHARACTERISTICS
Sample Depth
(ft)
Water‐Soluble Sulfate (SO4)
in Soil ppm (mg/kg) [%]
Water‐Soluble
Chloride Content
in soil ppm (mg/kg)
pH
B1 1 – 3 1481 [0.1481] 138 7.2
B5 3½ 189 [0.0189] 62 7.3
B11 3½ 140 [0.014] 39 7.3

4.3.1 CHEMICAL ATTACK POTENTIAL FORDEGRADATION OF CONCRETE AND/OR METALS The concentration of water‐soluble sulfates or dissolved sulfate in water is considered to be a good indicator of the potential for chemical attack on concrete.  Based on ACI Manual of Concrete Practice (ACI 201.2R‐10) or (ACI 318/318R‐33, Table 19.3.1.1), the amount of water‐soluble sulfate in soil can be used to evaluate the need for protection of concrete based on the following table.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

TABLE 4.2: REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE Water‐soluble sulfate (SO4) in Soil
percent by mass(%)
Water‐Soluble Sulfate (SO4)
in Water ppm (mg/kg) Sulfate Exposure Class
SO4
‐ < 0.10 SO4‐ < 150 S0 or Negligible Exposure

0.10 ≤ SO4
‐ < 0.20 150 ≤ SO4‐ < 1,500 S1 or Moderate Exposure

0.20 ≤ SO4
‐
≤ 2.0 1,500 ≤ SO4
‐
≤ 10,000 S2 or Severe Exposure

2.0 < SO4
‐ 10,000 < SO4‐ S3 or Very Severe Exposure
Based on the testresults ofselected soilsamples,the sulfate ion concentration was 251 ppmand the potential for reactions within concrete exposed to sulfates is considered negligible to moderate with a Class S0 to S1 Exposure.  Evaluations ofsoluble sulfate content contained within the selected samplessuggest no restriction on the type of concrete.  The actual cement type to be used shall be determined by the project Structural Engineer.

The corrosion potential of the soils is also dependent on the chloride content present in the soil.  The onset of corrosion ofsteel in concrete associated with the presence of chloride typically occurs when the values are above 463 mg/kg or ppm (1.5 pounds/yd3
).  The American Concrete Institute suggests maximum values of chlorides in conventionally reinforced concrete in moist environments be limited to 0.10% by weight of cement.

Soil pH can have a wide range of acidity, between 2.5 and 10.  Concrete is alkaline in nature, meaning it has a pH of 7.0 or higher.  pH levels below 5 can lead to extreme corrosion rates and premature pitting of metallic objects, a neutral pH of 7 is most desirable to minimize potential for damage.  The intrinsic pH level of a soil can also be affected by precipitation.  The pH values of the composite sample tested exhibited values which indicates the soils have a low corrosive potential.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 GEOTECHNICALDISCUSSION
The following geotechnical related recommendations have been developed on the basis of the subsurface conditions encountered and PSI’s understanding of the proposed development.  Based on our investigation, the site appears to be capable of supporting the proposed development while having no affect on adjacent properties.  The primary geotechnical consideration at this site is the potential for liquefaction and seismic settlement if the design earthquake were to occur.  PSI estimatesthat up to 1 inch of totalseismic settlement may occur below the proposed structures.  Structural designs or ground improvements may be implemented to mitigate these potential ground movements if desired.  Additionally, medium expansive, medium stiff clayey soils were also encountered to depths of approximately 11 feet bgs.  Should changes in the project criteria occur, a review must be made by PSI to determine if modifications to our recommendations will be required.

The following geotechnical design recommendations have been developed based on the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions encountered.   The proposed construction should be performed in accordance with these recommendations and the applicable building code, and local governmental standards which have jurisdiction over this project.  If there are changes in the project criteria, PSI should be retained to determine if modificationsin the recommendations will be required.  The findings of such a review would be presented in a supplemental report.  Once final design plans and specifications are available, a general review by PSI isrecommended to confirm that the conditions anticipated in preparing this geotechnicalreport are consistent with the earthwork and foundation recommendations contained within the construction documents.

5.2 SITE PREPARATION
The site development area should be cleared of all pavements, undocumented fill, utilities, surface vegetation, previous structures, or other improvements in conflict with the new construction.  All materials resulting from demolition of the existing improvements should be legally disposed off‐site.  Prepared areas should extend at least 5 feet outside the proposed improvements where possible.  Prepared areas and base of excavationsshould be proof‐rolled with heavy equipment (minimum 15 tons) prior to filling above.  Proof‐ rolled areas should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12‐inches and compacted as described below.

5.3 EARTHWORK

5.3.1 OVER‐EXCAVATION
PSI recommends removing the unsuitable soils including medium expansive clay soil and possible fill from below the proposed building areas.  These unsuitable soils should be replaced by compacted Engineered Fill having an expansion index of 50 or below.  Where unsuitable soils are encountered in subgrade excavations, PSI recommends that the subgrade soils within proposed structural areas be over‐excavated to a minimum depth of approximately 3 feet below the proposed foundations.  The base of the over‐excavation should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the building footprint or for a minimum width equal to the depth of fill constructed below, whichever is greater.  The intent of this recommendation is to provide a suitable foundation subgrade and to reduce post‐construction settlements to within tolerable limits.

In addition to the over‐excavation of structural areas, PSI recommends the soils within the pavement areas be scarified at least 12 inches below the finished subgrade elevation and compacted as described below to provide a uniform consistency of the soil subgrade.  Pavement subgrade areas consisting of softer, moist,

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

highly‐plastic clays (Fat clays, CH) should be over‐excavated an additional minimum of 12‐inches prior to scarification below and compacting fill back into place to meet subgrade excavations.

Following site preparation and over‐excavation, the newly exposed subgrades in site improvement areas intended for structures and pavements must be approved by the Geotechnical Engineering representative prior to fill placement above.  These exposed subgrades should be proof rolled with a loaded tandem axle dump truck or similar piece of rubber‐tired equipment (15 tons or greater) in the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative.   The purpose of the proof rolling is to detect the existence of unsuitable soils that may require over‐excavation and compaction.   Areas which deflect, rut or pump excessively during proof rolling, and which cannot de densified in‐place, should be undercut to suitable soils and backfilled with compacted fill.  Proof rolling should not be performed on saturated, frozen soil or during wet weather conditions.  Once approved, the soils exposed at the base of all excavations should be scarified to a depth of atleast 12 inches, moisture conditioned and then compacted as described below priorto placing Engineered Fill above.

5.3.2 FILL MATERIALS
Engineered Fill may include both onsite (native and fill) and import soil, should not contain rock fragments greater than 3 inches in diameter or have greater than 30 percent retained on the ¾‐inch sieve, and should not contain more than 3 percent (by weight) of organic matter or other unsuitable material.  On‐site or Imported Engineered Fill soils should have an Expansion Index (EI) that does not exceed 50.  Based on our subsurface investigation, existing on‐site soils are generally suitable for use as Engineered Fill once processed and blended or mixed.  The suitability of onsite materials for use as engineered fill should be confirmed by a PSI representative during grading.  Import materials meeting the above requirementsshould be approved by laboratory testing several days prior to importing to the site.  Soils that are environmentally impacted should not be used as Engineered Fill onsite.

In general, Engineered Fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557).  If tilt‐up construction is used, and within the top 12‐ inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of this proctor.  The moisture content of Engineered Fill should be maintained at approximately +2 percent of the material’s optimum moisture content if non‐plastic and 0 to 4 percent above optimum if plastic.  If the Engineered Fill is too dry, water should be uniformly applied across the affected fill area.  If the Engineered Fill is too wet, it must be dried.

Engineered Fill should be thoroughly mixed by disking, or other approved methods, to obtain relatively uniform moisture content throughout the lift immediately prior to compaction.

Engineered Fill should be placed in maximum lifts of 8 inches of loose material.  Each lift of Engineered Fill should be tested by a PSI soils technician, working under the direction of our Project Geotechnical Engineer, prior to placement of subsequent lifts.  If smaller compaction equipment such as jumping jacks or plate compactors are used thinner lifts will be required to achieve compaction.

Compaction of the Engineered Fillshould be verified with a sufficient number of density tests, as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer, to determine if adequate compaction is being achieved by the contractor.  The properly compacted Engineered Fillshould extend horizontally outward beyond the exterior perimeter of the structure a distance equal to the height of newly placed fill below or 5 feet, whichever is greater, prior to significant sloping.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

TABLE 5.1:  COMPACTION CRITERIA AND TESTING FREQUENCY
Material Type (Location)
Per Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D1557)
Minimum
Compaction
(%)
Moisture Content Range
(ref. to optimum moisture content)
Testing
Frequency
Minimum Maximum (min. 3 per lift)
Engineered Fill for non‐plastic soils 90 ‐2% +2% 1 per 2,500 sf Engineered Fill for plastic soils 90 0% +4% 1 per 2,500 sf

5.3.3 EXCAVATIONS
In Federal Register, Volume 54,No. 209 (October 1989),theUnited States Department of Labor,Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P".  This document was issued to better ensure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations.  It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines.  It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.

The contractorissolely responsible for designing and constructing stable excavations and should shore,slope, or bench the sides of the excavations asrequired to maintain stability.  The contractor's "responsible person", as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926,should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures.  In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.

We are providing this information solely as a service to our client.  PSI does not assume responsibility for construction site safety or other parties’ compliance with local,state, and federalsafety or other regulations.

5.3.4 UTILITIES
Utilitiesshould be designed with automatic shutoffs and flexible jointsto accommodate potentialseismically‐ induced ground motions anticipated.  Utility trenches may be backfilled with compacted soil above the pipe zone as described above.  Fill layers should be placed in 6‐ to 8‐inch lifts prior to compaction.  In pavement areas, the top 12‐inches ofsoilsubgrade should reach a minimum of 95 percent of this Proctor.  If rockslarger than 3‐inches in maximum size are encountered, they should be removed from utility backfill material prior to placement in the utility trenches.  Pipe zone backfill requirements should be in conformance with the requirements of the local agencies having jurisdiction, but should consist of clean granular sand material having a sand equivalent equal to or above 30.  Jetting or flooding of utility backfill is not recommended.  If smaller compaction equipment such as jumping jacks or plate compactors are used, thinner lifts will be required to achieve compaction.  Where utilities cross building perimeters, concrete or 2‐sack cement slurry should be used for backfilling around utilities to prevent moisture from migrating along the utility trench and entering the building envelope.  Backfill of utility trenches may incorporate a 2‐sack cement slurry as an alternative to soil compaction.

5.3.5 FLATWORK
For sidewalks or other flatwork adjacent to building and pavement areas, over‐excavation and compaction operations should extend beyond the perimeter of the building and pavements to at least the width of the adjacentsidewalk or flatwork.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

Other sidewalks or flatwork not adjacent to buildings should be placed on an improved subgrade meeting or exceeding the pavement subgrade improvement methods previously recommended.   If the sidewalk subgrade consists of material with a plasticity index of 25 or greater, a 12‐inch‐thick layer of compacted fill should be placed below the sidewalk.

Proper drainage around grade‐supported sidewalks and flatwork is also very important to reduce potential movements.  Elevating the sidewalks where possible and providing rapid, positive drainage away from them will reduce moisture variations within the underlying soils and will therefore provide valuable benefit in reducing the full magnitude of potential movements from being realized.

5.4 FOUNDATIONS
In our opinion, the structural loads of the proposed site improvements can be supported on conventional spread shallow footing foundations constructed in accordance with the following design criteria.  Additionally, PSI recommends that foundation type and bearing strata be consistent below structures.   Once SITE PREPARATION has been performed, the following structural elements may be constructed.

5.4.1 EXISTING BUILDING CONSIDERATIONS
PSI’s scope did not include an evaluation of potential differential settlements between the existing building and the proposed expansion; such an evaluation will require an investigation into the existing foundations and loading.  Based on the as‐built plans provided, it appearsthat the existing building and recent expansions were not placed on deep foundations or ground improvements; therefore, our recommendations have assumed shallow foundations will be required for the proposed structures.

If structural elements will extend to the existing building, an expansion joint should separate the existing building and new additions at the floor level, since some minor differential movement is expected to occur at this juncture.  Alternatively, new foundations could be tied to existing foundations using dowels to help mitigate this movement.   Shallow foundations for the new addition, if immediately adjacent to existing foundations,should bear at the same elevation asthe existing, adjacent foundations.  If the new and existing footings will bear at different elevations, a structural engineer should evaluate the stresses to be imposed on the lower foundation system and confirm that the structural integrity of the existing building and new addition will be maintained.  If the existing building foundations will need to be undermined, temporary shoring may be required.

Parallel foundations should be at least 1.5 footing widths apart (whichever is larger, either existing or new) to help reduce the additional stress imposed on the existing foundations, unless it is determined that the over‐lapping stressimposed by the existing and new foundations are within acceptable limitsfor the existing soil.  Where parallel foundations are farther than 4 feet apart, their different elevations should not place them within a 45‐degree envelope extending upward and downward from the outside edges of the existing foundations.

5.4.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
PSI recommends that the subgrade soils within proposed structural areas be over‐excavated to a minimum depth of approximately 3 feet below the proposed foundations.  Shallow spread and continuous footings founded at a depth of atleast 24 inches below lowest adjacentfinished grade can be designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf).  Minimum widths of 24 inches for column footings and 18 inches for continuous footings should be used in foundation design to reduce the possibility of a local bearing capacity failure.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

If unsuitable soils are encountered at footing excavation bottoms, the unsuitable material should be over excavated to suitable subgrade material and replaced with Engineered Fill or granularstructural fill.  The total width of the over excavation area beneath the design footing elevation should increase by 1 foot for each foot of over‐excavation.  The over excavated areas should be backfilled with Engineered Fill or clean crushed rock and compacted in accordance with the FILL MATERIALS section of this report.  Alternatively, upon approval by the Geotechnical Engineer, the foundation bearing surface could be lowered to the suitable subgrade material, backfilled with lean concrete, or improved through the installation of open graded, clean aggregate.

Based on the anticipated loads and the recommended site preparation, we estimate that post‐ construction total static settlement will be less than 1 inch.  Differential settlement is estimated to be less than ½ inch over a 40‐foot span.  These magnitudes of estimated settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits but should be confirmed by the project architect and structural engineer.

Seismically‐induced liquefaction settlements of less than 1 inch are estimated.  Typically, this magnitude ofsettlement istolerable; however, the structural engineershould consider reinforced slabs and stiffened foundations to accommodate seismic settlements.  If it is desired to reduce potential seismic settlement through other means, ground improvement options such as helical piles or other options can be recommended upon request.

We recommend the use of a smooth‐edged excavator to make the footing excavations.  The foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of PSI prior to steel or concrete placement to assess that the foundation materials can support the design loads and are consistent with the materials and recommendations discussed in this report.

The base frictional resistance and the passive soil resistance will counteract the horizontal loads on shallow foundations. Footings cast against natural competent soil or compacted soil may be designed using a frictional coefficient between the concrete and soil of 0.25.  An ultimate equivalent fluid pressure of 230 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used to compute the ultimate passive resistance.  Passive resistance within the upper 1 feet of soil should be neglected if the footings are placed using form boards.

If the footings are cast against competent natural soils or properly compacted fill soils and the soils above the footings are paved or consist of concrete floor slabs, the passive resistance within the upper 1 feet can be taken into account.  The passive resistance of any un‐compacted fill material or loose natural soils should be neglected.  It is recommended that the overturning moments on the foundations be resisted by the weight of the foundation system.  A minimum factor of safety of 2 should be used for sliding resistance.

After opening, footing excavations should be observed, and concrete should be placed as quickly as possible to avoid exposure of the excavations to wetting and drying.  Surface run‐off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond within 10 feet of the open excavation during or after construction.  When possible, the foundation concrete should be placed during the same day the foundation excavation is made.  If it is required that footing excavations be left open for more than one day, they should be protected to reduce moisture loss or gain.

PSI should be consulted during the design of the foundations to verify that the appropriate parameters are utilized. PSI should provide periodic observation during construction of the foundations to verify that the design parameters and the soil materials used during construction correspond.

5.5 FLOOR SLABS
Soil subgrade below slab‐on‐grade areas should be prepared by proof‐rolling, removing all unsuitable soils, scarified for a minimum depth of 12 inches and compacted as described above.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

Based on the near surface soil encountered, PSI estimates that a unit modulus of subgrade reaction (K1) of 150 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) is suitable for concrete slab sections supported by compacted fill.  The coefficient ofsubgrade reaction (Ks) isthe unit pressure required to produce a unitsettlementin soils.

A general equation to account for the effect of width of foundations in clayey soils is given by:

K = K1/B
where,  B  =   Minimum width of slab in feet.

K1 =   Unit modulus of subgrade reaction for a one‐foot square area.

In areas that will have moisture‐sensitive materials placed directly on the floor, PSI recommends that the slabs‐on‐grade be underlain by a minimum 4 inches of sand or rounded aggregate base to provide a capillary break.  A durable vapor‐retarding membrane should be installed beneath the slab‐on‐grade to reduce the risks of damp floors.   The vapor‐retarding membrane should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

5.6 RETAINING WALLS
If retaining walls are anticipated for loading docks or elsewhere, the following recommendations are provided.

5.6.1 GENERALDESIGN CRITERIA
If retaining walls are proposed, cantilever earth retention structures, which are designed to yield at least

0.001H, where H is equal to the height of the earth retention structure to the base of its footing, may be designed using active conditions.  Rigid earth retention structures (including but not limited to rigid walls) should be designed using the at‐rest condition.

In addition to the design lateral forces due to retained earth, surcharges due to existing improvements, such as adjacent buildings or traffic loading, should be considered in the design of the earth retention structures.

Loads applied within a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the surcharge on the stem and footing of the earth retention structure should be considered in the design.

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

5.6.2 CANTILEVERED WALLS
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls.  Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections.

An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall.

Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below forspecific slope gradients of the retained material.  These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, or adverse geologic conditions.

Table 1 – Active Earth Pressure Recommendations
Surface Slope of Retained
Materials
(h:v)
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(pcf)
(Native/Select Backfill)*
Level 40

1.5:1 65
*  The design pressures assume the backfill material has very low expansion index less than or equal to 20.  Backfill zone includes area between back of the

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

wall to a plane (1:1 h:v) up from bottom of the wall foundation (on the backside of the wall) to the (sloped) ground surface.

5.6.3 RESTRAINED RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls that will be restrained at the top or that have reentrant or male corners, should be designed for an equivalent at‐rest fluid pressure of 60 for level conditions, respectively.  If any vertical surcharge loads will be placed within 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) from the base of wall, PSI should be contacted to estimate additional lateral earth pressures that should be added to the at‐rest earth pressures.

5.6.4 RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND DRAINAGE
Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to help prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures where this potential exists.  Backdrains should consist of a minimum 4‐ inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 35, or approved equivalent) embedded in a minimum of one (1) cubic foot per linear foot of ¾‐  to 1‐inch clean crushed rock or an approved equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or an approved equivalent).  The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet or weep‐holes.

Retaining wall backfillshould be placed in lifts no greaterthan eight (8) inchesin thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557 as Engineered Fill.  The wall drainage should include a minimum two (2) feet wide section of ¾‐ to 1‐inch clean crushed rock (or an approved equivalent).  The rock should be placed immediately adjacent to the back of the wall and extend up from a back drain to within approximately 24 inches of the finish grade.

The rock should be separated from the earth with filter fabric as described above.  The upper 24 inches should consist of compacted on‐site plastic (clayey) material.

Waterproofing the back of the retaining walls should be considered to mitigate water staining, infiltration, and moisture migration through the wall.  If a waterproofing system is used, it should be designed by a qualified waterproofing consultant.

5.6.5 RETAINING WALL FOUNDATIONS
Retaining walls may be supported by conventional shallow continuous (strip) footings bearing on competent native soil or compacted fill as described above for shallow foundations.   Construction joints should be installed at all changes in bearing material (native/fill) and above or below foundation steps.

5.7 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Site grading should be carefully planned to promote positive drainage away from the structures and to divert surface water away from or into stormwater systems.  Water should not be allowed to collect near the foundations either during or after construction.

Pavement surfaces and open space areas should be sloped such that surface water runoff is collected and routed to suitable discharge points.  We also recommend that ground surfaces adjacentto buildings be sloped to facilitate positive drainage away from the buildings.

A positive slope gradient of 5 percent down and away from the structure’s perimeter should be applied to the finished subgrade (inclusive of topsoil).  This slope should extend no less than 10 feet away from the outside building perimeter, with drainage swales provided to remove runoff from around the structure.  Any utility trench that entersthe perimeter of a structuresshould be excavated with a slightslope down and away from the perimeter of the structure.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

5.8 LANDSCAPING CONSIDERATIONS
Landscaped or planted areas and irrigation should not be placed within 5 feet of the footings of the proposed structures.  Generally, irrigated landscaping should be positioned a minimumdistance away fromfoundations equal to half of their mature height.  Where concrete flat work such as sidewalks are placed next to the structure, concrete should be placed adjacent to the foundation to prevent a planter strip that would trap surface water between the foundation and the sidewalk.  For vegetation planted near the buildings, plants that require very little moisture should be used.  Irrigation systems (drip and/or sprinkler heads) should not direct water where it could saturate foundation soil.   If irrigation is desired adjacent to foundations, a moisture barrier may be installed to mitigate moisture intrusion beneath the foundation.

5.8.1 MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS / WEATHER RELATED CONCERNS The soils encountered at thissite may be sensitive to disturbances caused by construction traffic and changes in moisture content.  During wet weather periods, increases in the moisture content of the soil can cause significant reduction in the soil strength and support capabilities.  In addition, soils which become wet may be slow to dry and thus significantly retard the progress of grading and compaction activities.   It will, therefore, be advantageous to perform earthwork and foundations construction activities during dry weather.

If grading occurs in a period of increased rainfall, unstable subgrade conditions may be present.   These conditions may require stabilizing the subgrade with admixtures, such as cement kiln dust or a coarse aggregate.   Isolated areas may be stabilized using a geogrid, such as Tensar BX‐1200 or equal, having compacted aggregate base placed above, over the geogrid.  Additional recommendations can be provided, as required, during construction.

5.9 PAVEMENT DESIGN
In designing the proposed pavement areas, the following conditions were considered:

1. Subgrade support characteristics are typically represented by an R‐Value for the design of flexible pavements in this region.

2. Vehicular traffic volumes, interms of the number and frequency of vehicles and their range of axle loads should be considered.

3. Likely changes in vehicular use over the life of the pavement should also be considered.  We have anticipated that the pavement areas will not experience additional traffic.

4. Pavement life cycle was considered to be 20 years using Caltrans and Portland Cement Association Design Methods.

All site preparations and grading should be performed as discussed above.

Since an evaluation of the characteristics of the actual soils present at pavement subgrade can only be provided at the completion of grading, the following pavement sections should be used for planning purposes only.  Final pavement designs should be evaluated after R‐value tests have been performed on the actual in‐place subgrade materials exposed for use during construction.   Such testing will require several days of laboratory testing.

It should be noted that additional earthwork and/or ground improvement efforts may be required during grading on the actual subgrade material encountered, in order to achieve the aforementioned design parameters and assumptions.  These design thicknesses anticipate that a properly prepared subgrade has been achieved.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

Based on the results of our field exploration and laboratory testing, we recommend the pavement designs presented in the table below.  The pavement design criteria are based on the soil conditions present at the site, an anticipated R‐value of 15 and the estimated Traffic Index indicated below.  If higher Traffic Indices are desired, or different pavement sections, additional options may be provided upon request.

Final pavement designs should be based on R‐value testing of the as‐graded subgrade and actual traffic volumes.

TABLE 5.2:  PAVEMENTDESIGN PARAMETERS
Location
Traffic
Index
(TI)
Asphalt
Thickness
(inches)
+
Aggregate Base
Thickness
(inches)
Portland Cement
Concrete
Thickness
(inches)
+
Aggregate Base
Thickness
(inches)
Standard Drive
Aisles Light Duty
5 [7,500
ESALS]
4 + 6 5½ + 4
Truck Drive Aisles
Heavy Duty
7 [122,500
ESALS]
4½ + 12 6 + 6
We recommend rigid pavements (Portland Cement Concrete, PCC) be constructed at all areas requiring heavy braking and turning such as intersections, entrances, dolly pads, loading docks, trash truck loading areas, etc.  PCC pavement sections should incorporate appropriate steel reinforcement and crack control joints if needed and as designed by the project structural engineer.  We recommend that sections be as nearly squared as possible and no more than 15‐feet on a side.  Contraction joints may be constructed by saw cutting to a depth of 30 percent of the slab thickness.  Expansion/cold/construction joints may be used in lieu of contraction joints.  Such joints should be properly sealed.

Pavements can be expected to crack due to environmental factors and require periodic maintenance to reduce damage to the pavement structure should be planned throughout the life of the pavement.  During the paving life,maintenance to sealsurface cracks within concrete or asphalt paving and to reseal joints within concrete pavement should be undertaken to achieve the desired paving life.  Perimeter drainage should be controlled to prevent or retard influx ofsurface water from areassurrounding the paving. Water penetration leadsto paving degradation.  Water penetration into base orsubgrade materials,sometimes due to irrigation or surface water infiltration leads to pre‐mature paving degradation.  Curbs should be used in conjunction with asphalt paving to reduce potential for infiltration of moisture into the base course.  Curbsshould extend the full depth of the base course and should extend into the underlying subgrade.  The base layer should be tied into the area inlets to drain water that may collect in the base.

5.9.1 PAVEMENT MATERIALS
Pavement material requirements for the above pavement sections are presented below:
 Compacted Subgrade:  Pavementsubgrade preparation should be performed in accordance with the FILL MATERIALS section.  Subgrade soilsshould be proof‐rolled and scarified to a depth of 12 inches.

The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the laboratory standard.  Pavement subgrade areas consisting of softer, moist, highly‐plastic clays (Fat clays, CH) should be over‐excavated an additional minimum of 12‐inches prior to scarification below and compacting fill back into place to meetsubgrade excavations.  Aggregate Base Course:  Base materials should consist of Class II Aggregate Base.  Aggregate base should be placed in maximum 6‐inch compacted lifts.  The base materialsshould be compacted to at

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557.   Aggregate base materialsshould bemoisture conditioned to between +2 percentage points ofthe optimummoisture content.
 Portland Cement Concrete:  Concrete used for paving should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28‐days.  Concrete should have a water/cement ration of 0.45 or lower.  The air content at the point of placementshould range from 2 to 4 percent.  The concrete pavementsshould be reinforced and jointed per current ACI recommendations.

All materials should conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the Standard Specificationsfor Public Works Construction (Greenbook),the American Concrete Institute (ACI),the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the requirements of the City Public Works.

5.10 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTIONOBSERVATION
After final plans and specifications are complete, PSI should review the design and specifications so that the earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. It is considered imperative that the Geotechnical Engineer and/or their representative be present during earthwork operations and foundation installationsto observe the field conditions with respectto the design assumptions and specifications. PSI will not be responsible for changes in the project design or project information it was not provided, or interpretations and field quality control observations made by others. PSI would be pleased to provide these services for this project.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RISK AND REPORT LIMITATIONS
The concept of risk is an important aspect of the geotechnical evaluation.  The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science.

The analyticaltools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical andmust be used in conjunction with engineering judgment and experience.  Therefore, the solutions and recommendations presented in the geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk‐free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed structure will perform as planned.   The engineering recommendations presented in the preceding sections constitute PSI’s professional estimate of those measures that are necessary for the proposed structure to perform according to the proposed design based on the information generated and referenced during this evaluation, and PSI’s experience in working with these conditions.

Services performed by PSI for this project have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area.  No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface information obtained by PSI, and information provided by the client, client’s representative and client’s design consultants.  If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, PSI should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation and/or other recommendations are required.  If PSI is not retained to perform these functions, PSI cannot be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the performance of the project.

The Geotechnical Engineer should be retained and provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specificationsto check that our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents.  At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Client and their design consultants.

Sysco Corporation ~ Walnut, CA
PSI Project No: 0066‐1854
July 8, 2022

7.0 REFERENCES

1. Ambrose Engineering, Inc., Structural Plans for 2008 Cooler Expansion for Sysco, Job No. 041‐08‐01, revised October 26, 2009.

2. American Concrete Institute, “Building Code Requirementsfor Structural Concrete”, ACI 318‐11, 2017.

3. California Geological Survey (CGS), “California Geomorphic Provinces”, 2002.

4. CGS, “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, San Dimas Quadrangle”, 1999.

5. CGS, “Fault Activity Map of California”, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/APP/

6. CGS, “Seismic Hazard Zone Repot for the San Dimas 7.5‐Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California”, 1998.

7. Dibblee, T.W. and Minch, J.A., “Geologic Map of the San Dimas and Ontario Quadrangles, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California”, Dibblee Geological Foundation, Map DF‐91, 2002.

8. GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Software, CLiq – Cone Penetration Test Soil Liquefaction software, V.3.4.1.4 and CPeT‐IT – Cone Penetration Data and Interpretation software, V.3.7.1.12.

9. Nixon Associates, Inc., Structural Plans for CFS, revised October 28, 1988.

10. Sysco Corporation, “Proposed Site Plan, 21 Facility Expansion and Site Modifications for Sysco Los Angeles, 20701 Currier Road, Walnut, CA 91789”, 12/17/21.

11. Portland Cement Association, “Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements”.

12. Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI), “Geotechnical Investigation and Recommendations, Proposed Pavement Replacement, 20701 Currier Road, Walnut, California 91789”, PSI Project No. 0559‐1932, 11/30/16.

13. Southern California Geotechnical, “Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation, Proposed Cooler Expansion – Sysco Food Services of Los Angeles, 20701 East Currier Road, City of Industry, California”, Project No. 08G120‐1, dated April 18, 2008.

14. Southern California Geotechnical, “Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation, Proposed Business Plan Review Meeting Center, 20701 East Currier Road, City of Industry, California”, Project No. 09G137‐1, dated July 16, 2009.

15. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. B., “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, 2nd edition.

16. USDA NRCS Soil Survey, “Custom Soil Resource Report for Los Angeles County, California, Southeastern Part”, March 11, 2022.

17. USGS, “San Dimas Quadrangle, California, 7.5‐minute series”, 2021.

18. USGS Website https://seismicmaps.org/, US Seismic Design Maps.

FIGURES

Professional Service Industries, Inc.
11980 Telegraph Road, Suite 104
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
(714) 484‐8600

SITE VICINITY MAP
PSI Project No. 0066‐1854
Sysco Corporation

SYSCO FACILITY EXPANSION
20701 Currier Road
Walnut, CA 91789
Reference:  Bing Maps
FIGURE 1
Site

Professional Service Industries, Inc.
11980 Telegraph Road, Suite 104
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
(714) 484‐8600
Approximate Exploration
Location Plan
PSI Project No. 0066‐1854
Sysco Corporation

SYSCO FACILITY EXPANSION
20701 Currier Road
Walnut, CA 91789
Reference: Google Earth
FIGURE 2
LEGEND
B11   Approximate Boring Location
CPT5  Approximate CPT Location
Previous Boring Location (PSI, 11/30/16)
Reference – Sysco & ESI
B1
CPT1
B2
B4
B3
B8
B7
B5
CPT3/3A
CPT4
CPT2 B6
B11 B10
CPT5
B9

APPENDIX A
Field Exploration & Laboratory Testing Program

GENERAL NOTES

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION

The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), AASHTO 1988 and ASTM designations D2487 and D-2488 are used to identify the encountered materials unless otherwise noted. Coarse-grained soils are defined as having more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve (0.075mm); they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine-grained soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are defined as silts or clay depending on their Atterberg Limit attributes. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size.

Description
Flat:

Elongated:

Flat & Elongated:

Description
Angular:

Subangular:

Subrounded:

Rounded:

Criteria
Particles with width/thickness ratio > 3
Particles with length/width ratio > 3
Particles meet criteria for both flat and
elongated
Descriptive Term
Trace:

With:

Modifier:

Size Range
Over 300 mm (>12 in.)
75 mm to 300 mm (3 in. to 12 in.)
19 mm to 75 mm (¾ in. to 3 in.)

4.75 mm to 19 mm (No.4 to ¾ in.)
2 mm to 4.75 mm (No.10 to No.4)

0.42 mm to 2 mm (No.40 to No.10)

0.075 mm to 0.42 mm (No. 200 to No.40)

0.005 mm to 0.075 mm
<0.005 mm
Component
Boulders:

Cobbles:

Coarse-Grained Gravel:

Fine-Grained Gravel:

Coarse-Grained Sand:

Medium-Grained Sand:

Fine-Grained Sand:

Silt:

Clay:

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS ANGULARITY OF COARSE-GRAINED PARTICLES N - Blows/foot
0 - 4
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
50+
Relative Density
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES
% Dry Weight
< 5%
5% to 12%
>12%
Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D.

Split-Spoon.

A "N" penetration value corrected to an equivalent 60% hammer energy transfer efficiency (ETR) Unconfined compressive strength, TSF
Pocket penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, TSF Moisture/water content, %
Liquid Limit, %
Plastic Limit, %
Plasticity Index = (LL-PL),%
Dry unit weight, pcf
Apparent groundwater level at time noted
Criteria
Particles have sharp edges and relatively plane
sides with unpolished surfaces
Particles are similar to angular description, but have
rounded edges
Particles have nearly plane sides, but have
well-rounded corners and edges
Particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges
N:

N60:

Qu:

Qp:
w%:

LL:

PL:

PI:

DD:
, ,

GRAIN-SIZE TERMINOLOGY PARTICLE SHAPE

SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS

DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS
Solid Flight Auger - typically 4" diameter
flights, except where noted.

Hollow Stem Auger - typically 3¼" or 4¼ I.D.
openings, except where noted.

Mud Rotary - Uses a rotary head with
Bentonite or Polymer Slurry
Diamond Bit Core Sampler
Hand Auger
Power Auger - Handheld motorized auger
Standard Penetration Test sampler - 1 3/8" I.D.,
2" O.D.

California Modified Sampler - 2 1/2" I.D., 3" O.D.

Shelby Tube - 3" O.D.

Rock Core
Bulk Sample
SFA:

HSA:

M.R.:

R.C.:

H.A.:

P.A.:

SPT:

ST:

RC:

BS:

CMS:

GENERAL NOTES
QU - TSF N - Blows/foot Consistency
0 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
30 - 50
Criteria
Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Damp but no visible water
Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL
% Dry Weight
< 15%
15% to 30%
>30%
Descriptive Term
Trace:

With:

Modifier:
0 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 1.00

1.00 - 2.00

2.00 - 4.00

4.00 - 8.00

MOISTURE CONDITION DESCRIPTION

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Description
Blocky:

Lensed:

Layer:

Seam:

Parting:

Description
Stratified:

Laminated:

Fissured:

Slickensided:

STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION

QU - TSF
Extremely Soft
Very Soft
Soft
Medium Hard
Moderately Hard
Hard
Very Hard

SCALE OF RELATIVE ROCK HARDNESS ROCK BEDDING THICKNESSES Consistency
Criteria
Alternating layers of varying material or color with
layers at least ¼-inch (6 mm) thick
Alternating layers of varying material or color with
layers less than ¼-inch (6 mm) thick
Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little
resistance to fracturing
Fracture planes appear polished or glossy,
sometimes striated
Criteria
Greater than 3-foot (>1.0 m)
1-foot to 3-foot (0.3 m to 1.0 m)
4-inch to 1-foot (0.1 m to 0.3 m)
1¼-inch to 4-inch (30 mm to 100 mm)
½-inch to 1¼-inch (10 mm to 30 mm)
1/8-inch to ½-inch (3 mm to 10 mm)
1/8-inch or less "paper thin" (<3 mm)
Description
Dry:

Moist:

Wet:

Description
Very Thick Bedded
Thick Bedded
Medium Bedded
Thin Bedded
Very Thin Bedded
Thickly Laminated
Thinly Laminated

2.5 - 10
10 - 50
50 - 250
250 - 525
525 - 1,050
1,050 - 2,600
>2,600
(Continued)
Component
Very Coarse Grained
Coarse Grained
Medium Grained
Fine Grained
Very Fine Grained

GRAIN-SIZED TERMINOLOGY
(Typically Sedimentary Rock)

ROCK VOIDS
Voids
Pit
Vug
Cavity
Cave
Void Diameter
<6 mm (<0.25 in)
6 mm to 50 mm (0.25 in to 2 in)
50 mm to 600 mm (2 in to 24 in)
>600 mm (>24 in)

ROCK QUALITY DESCRIPTION
RQD Value
90 -100
75 - 90
50 - 75
25 -50
Less than 25
Size Range
>4.76 mm

2.0 mm - 4.76 mm

0.42 mm - 2.0 mm

0.075 mm - 0.42 mm
<0.075 mm
Rock generally fresh, joints stained and discoloration
extends into rock up to 25 mm (1 in), open joints may
contain clay, core rings under hammer impact.

Rock mass is decomposed 50% or less, significant
portions of the rock show discoloration and
weathering effects, cores cannot be broken by hand
or scraped by knife.

Rock mass is more than 50% decomposed, complete
discoloration of rock fabric, core may be extremely
broken and gives clunk sound when struck by
hammer, may be shaved with a knife.

Rock Mass Description
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor

DEGREE OF WEATHERING
Slightly Weathered:

Weathered:

Highly Weathered:

Criteria
Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small
angular lumps which resist further breakdown
Inclusion of small pockets of different soils
Inclusion greater than 3 inches thick (75 mm)
Inclusion 1/8-inch to 3 inches (3 to 75 mm) thick
extending through the sample
Inclusion less than 1/8-inch (3 mm) thick
Very Soft
Soft
Firm (Medium Stiff)
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard

OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML
SC
SM
SP
COARSE

GRAINED
SOILS
SW

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL
- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

GRAPH LETTER

SYMBOLS MAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PT
GC
GM
GP
GW

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

CLAY MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY

CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY
SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH

PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
CLEAN

GRAVELS

GRAVELS WITH
FINES

CLEAN SANDS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITH
FINES

LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GRAVEL
AND

GRAVELLY
SOILS
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT

OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT

OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
FINE

GRAINED
SOILS
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
PASSING ON NO. 4
SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

18 18
16 18
18 ML
CL
CL
SM
CL
SM
24 27
26 18
25 25
Corrosion Series
DD = 92 pcf
LL = 45
PL = 26
Consolidation
Consolidation
DD = 93 pcf
LL = 41
PL = 19
10 inches of Concrete. No Aggregate Base.

Sandy SILT with Gravel, brown, occasional
cement and rock, moist. [FILL]
Silty Clay, grayish-brown, very stiff, trace
clay, moist.
...becomes stiff.

Silty CLAY, grayish-brown, stiff, moist.

Silty SAND with Clay, grayish-brown, loose,
moist.

Silty CLAY, grayish-brown, medium stiff,
moist.

Silty SAND, orange-brown, medium dense,
moist.
7-10-13
3-3-5
5-6-8
2-3-3
2-2-2
3-5-7
PROJECT NO.: 00661854
PROJECT: Sysco
Depth, (feet)
STRENGTH, tsf
Additional
Remarks USCS Classification
0 Qp
Sample Type

2.0 0 Moisture, %
Moisture MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST DATA
N in blows/ft
Qu
Graphic Log
Sample No.
50 PL
Elevation (feet)
LL

4.0 25
Recovery (inches)
While Drilling
After 15 minutes
Continued Next Page
LATITUDE: 34.0098°
LONGITUDE: -117.8563°
LOCATION: 20701 Currier Road

21.8 feet

22.5 feet Water
DRILLER: Nick
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
11980 Telegraph Rd, Unit 104
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Telephone: (714) 484-8600 Walnut, CA SPT Blows per 6-inch (SS) Push Pressure (ST) DATE STARTED: 5/4/22
BENCHMARK: N/A
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 2 DRILL COMPANY: 2R Drilling
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A
LOGGED BY: N. Barba
DRILL RIG: CME-75
REVIEWED BY: Douglas Abernathy See Boring Location Plan EFFICIENCY N/A East of Proposed Service Bay
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
0 5
10 15
20 25
DATE COMPLETED: 5/4/22 BORING B1
ELEVATION: N/A
COMPLETION DEPTH 31.5 ft
DRILLING METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
SAMPLING METHOD: SS/ ST: CMS, SPT, & ST
REMARKS:

18 18
SM
SW-SM
29 12
Sieve Analysis
...becomes loose, wet.

Well-Graded SAND with Silt and Gravel, orange-brown, very dense, wet.

Boring terminated at 31-1/2 feet below ground
surface.

Groundwater encountered at 22.5 feet during
drilling; groundwater at 21.8 feet after 15
minutes.

Borehole backfilled with cement grout and
patched with rapid-set concrete (Quikrete).
3-3-6
18-37-50(6")
PROJECT NO.: 00661854
PROJECT: Sysco
Depth, (feet)
STRENGTH, tsf
Additional
Remarks USCS Classification
0 Qp
Sample Type

2.0 0 Moisture, %
Moisture MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST DATA
N in blows/ft
Qu
Graphic Log
Sample No.
50 PL
Elevation (feet)
LL

4.0 25
Recovery (inches)
While Drilling
After 15 minutes
LATITUDE: 34.0098°
LONGITUDE: -117.8563°
LOCATION: 20701 Currier Road

21.8 feet

22.5 feet Water
DRILLER: Nick
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
11980 Telegraph Rd, Unit 104
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Telephone: (714) 484-8600 Walnut, CA SPT Blows per 6-inch (SS) Push Pressure (ST) DATE STARTED: 5/4/22
BENCHMARK: N/A
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 2 of 2 DRILL COMPANY: 2R Drilling
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A
LOGGED BY: N. Barba
DRILL RIG: CME-75
REVIEWED BY: Douglas Abernathy See Boring Location Plan EFFICIENCY N/A East of Proposed Service Bay
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
25 30
DATE COMPLETED: 5/4/22 BORING B1
ELEVATION: N/A
COMPLETION DEPTH 31.5 ft
DRILLING METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
SAMPLING METHOD: SS/ ST: CMS, SPT, & ST
REMARKS:

14 SM
ML
21 17
DD = 100 pcf
2 inches of Asphalt.
5 inches of Aggregate Base.

Silty SAND with Gravel, brown and dark
brown, medium dense, dry. [Possible Fill]
Sandy SILT, light gray, stiff, moist.
(Fine-Grained) [NATIVE]
Boring terminated at 6-1/2 feet below ground
surface.

No groundwater encountered.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and
topped with asphalt cold patch.
6-9-7
3-3-5
PROJECT NO.: 00661854
PROJECT: Sysco
Depth, (feet)
STRENGTH, tsf
Additional
Remarks USCS Classification
0 Qp
Sample Type

2.0 0 Moisture, %
Moisture MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST DATA
N in blows/ft
Qu
Graphic Log
Sample No.
50 PL
Elevation (feet)
LL

4.0 25
Recovery (inches)
LATITUDE: 34.0112°
LONGITUDE: -117.8542°
LOCATION: 20701 Currier Road
None Water
DRILLER: Nick
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
11980 Telegraph Rd, Unit 104
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Telephone: (714) 484-8600 Walnut, CA SPT Blows per 6-inch (SS) DATE STARTED: 5/4/22
BENCHMARK: N/A
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1 DRILL COMPANY: 2R Drilling
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A
LOGGED BY: L. Razo
DRILL RIG: CME-75
REVIEWED BY: Douglas Abernathy See Boring Location Plan EFFICIENCY N/A North of Existing Building
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
0 5
DATE COMPLETED: 5/4/22 BORING B2
ELEVATION: N/A
COMPLETION DEPTH 6.5 ft
DRILLING METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
SAMPLING METHOD: SS: CMS & SPT
REMARKS:

18 13
18 18
10 CL
ML
CL
SM
27 27
22 23
17 18
19 DD = 99 pcf
DD = 104 pcf
Sieve Analysis
4 inches of Asphalt.
5 inches of Aggregate Base.

Silty CLAY, dark gray, stiff, moist.
...becomes gray and dark gray.
...becomes brown.

Sandy SILT, brown, stiff, moist.

Silty CLAY, brown, very stiff, moist.

Silty SAND, brown, stiff, moist.

Boring terminated at 21-1/2 feet below ground
surface.

No groundwater encountered.

Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and
topped with asphalt cold patch.
4-4-9
3-5-6
4-8-12
3-5-7
3-4-6
3-8-10
6-4-6
PROJECT NO.: 00661854
PROJECT: Sysco
Depth, (feet)
STRENGTH, tsf
Additional
Remarks USCS Classification
0 Qp
Sample Type

2.0 0 Moisture, %
Moisture MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST DATA
N in blows/ft
Qu
Graphic Log
Sample No.
50 PL
Elevation (feet)
LL

4.0 25
Recovery (inches)
LATITUDE: 34.0119°
LONGITUDE: -117.8533°
LOCATION: 20701 Currier Road
None Water
DRILLER: Nick
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
11980 Telegraph Rd, Unit 104
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Telephone: (714) 484-8600 Walnut, CA SPT Blows per 6-inch (SS) DATE STARTED: 5/4/22
BENCHMARK: N/A
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1 DRILL COMPANY: 2R Drilling
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A
LOGGED BY: L. Razo
DRILL RIG: CME-75
REVIEWED BY: Douglas Abernathy See Boring Location Plan EFFICIENCY N/A West of Proposed Bio-Retention Area
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
0 5
10 15
20 DATE COMPLETED: 5/4/22 BORING B3
ELEVATION: N/A
COMPLETION DEPTH 21.5 ft
DRILLING METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
SAMPLING METHOD: SS: CMS & SPT
REMARKS:
>>

18 18
14 18
12 CL
CL
SM
CL
SM
21 23
19 22
13 22
21 20
EI = 24
DD = 98 pcf
DD = 104 pcf
Sieve Analysis
3 inches of Asphalt.
15 inches of Aggregate Base.

Silty CLAY, dark brown, occasional
concrete, moist. [FILL]
...very stiff, becomes brown and black.

Silty CLAY, dark brown, stiff, moist.
[NATIVE]
Silty SAND, brownish-green, medium dense,
trace clay, occasional gravel, moist.

Silty CLAY, dark gray and black, stiff, moist.

Silty SAND, olive-gray, dense, occasional
gravel, moist. (Fine-Grained)
...becomes medium dense.
...becomes tan.
...becomes orange-brown, very dense.

Boring terminated at 21-1/2 feet below ground
surface.

Groundwater encountered at 18.5 feet during
drilling; groundwater at 15.8 feet after 15
minutes.

Borehole backfilled cement grout and topped
with asphalt cold patch.
4-6-10
4-6-7
7-8-10
4-14-20
6-9-11
7-9-14
5-28-24
PROJECT NO.: 00661854
PROJECT: Sysco
Depth, (feet)
STRENGTH, tsf
Additional
Remarks USCS Classification
0 Qp
Sample Type

2.0 0 Moisture, %
Moisture MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST DATA
N in blows/ft
Qu
Graphic Log
Sample No.
50 PL
Elevation (feet)
LL

4.0 25
Recovery (inches)
While Drilling
After 15 minutes
LATITUDE: 34.0117°
LONGITUDE: -117.8523°
LOCATION: 20701 Currier Road

15.8 feet

18.5 feet Water
DRILLER: Nick
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
11980 Telegraph Rd, Unit 104
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Telephone: (714) 484-8600 Walnut, CA SPT Blows per 6-inch (SS) DATE STARTED: 5/4/22
BENCHMARK: N/A
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 1 DRILL COMPANY: 2R Drilling
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A
LOGGED BY: L. Razo
DRILL RIG: CME-75
REVIEWED BY: Douglas Abernathy See Boring Location Plan EFFICIENCY N/A South of Proposed Bio-Retention Area
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
0 5
10 15
20 DATE COMPLETED: 5/4/22 BORING B4
ELEVATION: N/A
COMPLETION DEPTH 21.5 ft
DRILLING METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
SAMPLING METHOD: SS: CMS & SPT
REMARKS:

18 18
16 16
12 SM
CL
ML
10 21
19 27
25 22
Corrosion Series
DD = 116 pcf
LL = 37
PL = 16
DD = 110 pcf
3 inches of Asphalt.
15 inches of Aggregate Base.

Silty SAND, tan, medium dense, moist.
(Fine-Grained)
Silty CLAY, brown, medium stiff, moist.
...becomes very stiff. (like claystone)
Sandy SILT, light brown with iron staining,
hard, moist. (like bedrock)
...becomes orange and tan.
8-14-12
2-2-4
6-12-15
7-14-24
12-17-17
10-24-35
PROJECT NO.: 00661854
PROJECT: Sysco
Depth, (feet)
STRENGTH, tsf
Additional
Remarks USCS Classification
0 Qp
Sample Type

2.0 0 Moisture, %
Moisture MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST DATA
N in blows/ft
Qu
Graphic Log
Sample No.
50 PL
Elevation (feet)
LL

4.0 25
Recovery (inches)
Continued Next Page
LATITUDE: 34.0109°
LONGITUDE: -117.8528°
LOCATION: 20701 Currier Road
None Water
DRILLER: Nick
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
11980 Telegraph Rd, Unit 104
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Telephone: (714) 484-8600 Walnut, CA SPT Blows per 6-inch (SS) Push Pressure (ST) DATE STARTED: 5/4/22
BENCHMARK: N/A
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries. The transition may be gradual. Sheet 1 of 2 DRILL COMPANY: 2R Drilling
STATION: N/A OFFSET: N/A
LOGGED BY: L. Razo
DRILL RIG: CME-75
REVIEWED BY: Douglas Abernathy See Boring Location Plan EFFICIENCY N/A East of Proposed Cold Dock
HAMMER TYPE: Automatic BORING LOCATION:
0 5
10 15
20 25
DATE COMPLETED: 5/4/22 BORING B5
ELEVATION: N/A
COMPLETION DEPTH 31.5 ft
DRILLING METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger
SAMPLING METHOD: SS/ ST: CMS, SPT, & ST
REMARKS:
>>