10. Exhibit D.4 - EIR Appendices — Downey City Council, June 11, 2024 (part 3 of 13)

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.3183

9.9726

3.3771

0.0343

0.9156

0.0122

0.9277

0.2636

0.0116

0.2752
3,671.400
7 3,671.400
7 0.2096
3,676.641
7 Worker

2.5029

1.5073

17.8820

0.0550

6.0932

0.0479

6.1411

1.6163

0.0441

1.6604
5,483.797
4 5,483.797
4 0.1442
5,487.402
0 Total

2.8211

11.4799

21.2591

0.0893

7.0088

0.0601

7.0688

1.8799

0.0557

1.9356
9,155.198
1 9,155.198
1 0.3538
9,164.043
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.5728

14.3849

16.2440

0.0269

0.6997

0.6584

0.0000
2,555.209
9 2,555.209
9 0.6079
2,570.406
1 Total

1.5728

14.3849

16.2440

0.0269

0.6997

0.6584

0.0000
2,555.209
9 2,555.209
9 0.6079
2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 20 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.3183

9.9726

3.3771

0.0343

0.9156

0.0122

0.9277

0.2636

0.0116

0.2752
3,671.400
7 3,671.400
7 0.2096
3,676.641
7 Worker

2.5029

1.5073

17.8820

0.0550

6.0932

0.0479

6.1411

1.6163

0.0441

1.6604
5,483.797
4 5,483.797
4 0.1442
5,487.402
0 Total

2.8211

11.4799

21.2591

0.0893

7.0088

0.0601

7.0688

1.8799

0.0557

1.9356
9,155.198
1 9,155.198
1 0.3538
9,164.043
7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.4694

0.4694
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.4694

0.4694
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 21 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0469

0.0282

0.3349

1.0300e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
102.6928
102.6928

2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total

0.0469

0.0282

0.3349

1.0300e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
102.6928
102.6928

2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.4694

0.0000
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.0327

10.1917

14.5842

0.0228

0.5102

0.4694

0.0000
2,207.584
1 2,207.584
1 0.7140
2,225.433
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 22 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0469

0.0282

0.3349

1.0300e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
102.6928
102.6928

2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Total

0.0469

0.0282

0.3349

1.0300e-
003

0.1141

9.0000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.3000e-
004

0.0311
102.6928
102.6928

2.7000e-
003
102.7603
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4310

0.4310
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4310

0.4310
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 23 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0444

0.0257

0.3114

1.0000e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311

99.5045

2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Total

0.0444

0.0257

0.3114

1.0000e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311

99.5045

2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4310

0.0000
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.9882

9.5246

14.6258

0.0228

0.4685

0.4310

0.0000
2,207.547
2 2,207.547
2 0.7140
2,225.396
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 24 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0444

0.0257

0.3114

1.0000e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311

99.5045

2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Total

0.0444

0.0257

0.3114

1.0000e-
003

0.1141

8.8000e-
004

0.1150

0.0303

8.1000e-
004

0.0311

99.5045

2.4700e-
003

99.5663
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating
236.4115

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1808

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0609
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Total
236.5923

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0609
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 25 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.4734

0.2743

3.3220

0.0107

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264
1,062.041
0 Total

0.4734

0.2743

3.3220

0.0107

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264
1,062.041
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating
236.4115

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1808

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Total
236.5923

1.2188

1.8101

2.9700e-
003

0.0609

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0159
281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 26 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.4734

0.2743

3.3220

0.0107

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264
1,062.041
0 Total

0.4734

0.2743

3.3220

0.0107

1.2171

9.4300e-
003

1.2266

0.3229

8.6800e-
003

0.3315
1,061.381
8 1,061.381
8 0.0264
1,062.041
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 27 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

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

9.5233

45.9914
110.0422

0.4681

45.9592

0.3373

46.2965

12.2950

0.3132

12.6083
47,917.80
05 47,917.80
05 2.1953
47,972.68
39 Unmitigated

9.5233

45.9914
110.0422

0.4681

45.9592

0.3373

46.2965

12.2950

0.3132

12.6083
47,917.80
05 47,917.80
05 2.1953
47,972.68
39 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise
145.75
154.25
154.00
506,227
506,227
Apartments Mid Rise
4,026.75
3,773.25
4075.50
13,660,065
13,660,065
General Office Building
288.45

62.55 31.05
706,812
706,812
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant)
2,368.80
2,873.52
2817.72
3,413,937
3,413,937
Hotel
192.00
187.50
160.00
445,703
445,703
Quality Restaurant
501.12
511.92
461.20
707,488
707,488
Regional Shopping Center
528.08
601.44
357.84
1,112,221
1,112,221
Total
8,050.95
8,164.43
8,057.31
20,552,452
20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 28 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Apartments Mid Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40

6.90 8.50

72.50 19.00
37 20
43 Hotel

16.60 8.40

6.90 19.40

61.60 19.00
58 38
4 Quality Restaurant

16.60 8.40

6.90 12.00

69.00 19.00
38 18
44 Regional Shopping Center

16.60 8.40

6.90 16.30

64.70 19.00
54 35
11 5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Apartments Low Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Apartments Mid Rise

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
General Office Building

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Hotel

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Quality Restaurant

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Regional Shopping Center

0.543088

0.044216

0.209971

0.116369

0.014033

0.006332

0.021166

0.033577

0.002613

0.001817

0.005285

0.000712

0.000821
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 29 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

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

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.7660

6.7462

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 30 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1119.16

0.0121

0.1031

0.0439

6.6000e-
004

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003
131.6662
131.6662

2.5200e-
003

2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise
35784.3

0.3859

3.2978

1.4033

0.0211

0.2666

0.2666
4,209.916
4 4,209.916
4 0.0807

0.0772
4,234.933
9 General Office
Building
1283.42

0.0138

0.1258

0.1057

7.5000e-
004

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003
150.9911
150.9911

2.8900e-
003

2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
22759.9

0.2455

2.2314

1.8743

0.0134

0.1696

0.1696
2,677.634
2 2,677.634
2 0.0513

0.0491
2,693.546
0 Hotel
4769.72

0.0514

0.4676

0.3928

2.8100e-
003

0.0355

0.0355
561.1436
561.1436

0.0108

0.0103
564.4782
Quality
Restaurant
5057.75

0.0545

0.4959

0.4165

2.9800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377
595.0298
595.0298

0.0114

0.0109
598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center
251.616

2.7100e-
003

0.0247

0.0207

1.5000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

29.6019

5.7000e-
004

5.4000e-
004

29.7778
Total

0.7660

6.7463

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 31 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.11916

0.0121

0.1031

0.0439

6.6000e-
004

8.3400e-
003

8.3400e-
003
131.6662
131.6662

2.5200e-
003

2.4100e-
003
132.4486
Apartments Mid
Rise

35.7843

0.3859

3.2978

1.4033

0.0211

0.2666

0.2666
4,209.916
4 4,209.916
4 0.0807

0.0772
4,234.933
9 General Office
Building

1.28342

0.0138

0.1258

0.1057

7.5000e-
004

9.5600e-
003

9.5600e-
003
150.9911
150.9911

2.8900e-
003

2.7700e-
003
151.8884
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

22.7599

0.2455

2.2314

1.8743

0.0134

0.1696

0.1696
2,677.634
2 2,677.634
2 0.0513

0.0491
2,693.546
0 Hotel

4.76972

0.0514

0.4676

0.3928

2.8100e-
003

0.0355

0.0355
561.1436
561.1436

0.0108

0.0103
564.4782
Quality
Restaurant

5.05775

0.0545

0.4959

0.4165

2.9800e-
003

0.0377

0.0377
595.0298
595.0298

0.0114

0.0109
598.5658
Regional
Shopping Center

0.251616

2.7100e-
003

0.0247

0.0207

1.5000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

29.6019

5.7000e-
004

5.4000e-
004

29.7778
Total

0.7660

6.7463

4.2573

0.0418

0.5292

0.5292
8,355.983
2 8,355.983
2 0.1602

0.1532
8,405.638
7 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 32 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

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

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Unmitigated

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.2670

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

24.1085

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

1.6500

14.1000

6.0000

0.0900

1.1400

0.0000
18,000.00
00 18,000.00
00 0.3450

0.3300
18,106.96
50 Landscaping

2.4766

0.9496

82.4430

4.3600e-
003

0.4574

0.4574
148.5950
148.5950

0.1424
152.1542
Total

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 33 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural
Coating

2.2670

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

24.1085

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

1.6500

14.1000

6.0000

0.0900

1.1400

0.0000
18,000.00
00 18,000.00
00 0.3450

0.3300
18,106.96
50 Landscaping

2.4766

0.9496

82.4430

4.3600e-
003

0.4574

0.4574
148.5950
148.5950

0.1424
152.1542
Total

30.5020

15.0496

88.4430

0.0944

1.5974

0.0000
18,148.59
50 18,148.59
50 0.4874

0.3300
18,259.11
92 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 34 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 1/12/2021 2:30 PM

Page 35 of 35 ends

Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Winter

Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
Local Hire Provision Net Change
With Local Hire Provision
Without Local Hire Provision
Attachment C

EXHIBIT B

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist

Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience

Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist

Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015

In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014

In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013

In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013

EXHIBIT C
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: [email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
G
eologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.

Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);

• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
4 • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011.
9 1

04/27/2022

VIA EMAIL ONLY

Alfonso Hernandez, Senior Planner
City of Downey
Planning Division
1st Floor Downey City Hall
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Email: [email protected]

RE: NOP Comments for Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project

Dear Mr. Hernandez,

On behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development ("CREED LA") thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for environmental review of the Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project (the “Project”).

The proposed Project would include the demolition of existing five buildings and the construction of an approximately 510,110 square foot industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses, and a 25,000 square foot ancillary truck workshop facility.

The Initial Study (“IS”) identifies the Project’s potentially significant impacts under CEQA to include Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. CREED LA respectfully requests, under CEQA complete analysis of these impacts, imposition of all feasible mitigation and study of a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.

2 I. Background on CEQA EIRs
CEQA advances three related purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1). “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.

Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring implementation of “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564. If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” Pub. Res. Code § 21081; Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A) and (B).

Third, CEQA compels disclosing “to the public the rationale for governmental approval of a project that may significantly impact the environment.” California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 382.

Although the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal.3d 376, 409 n. 12 (1988)). Substantial evidence in the record must support any foundational assumptions used for the impact analyses in the EIR. Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 568 (EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just bare conclusions); Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 392-93 (agency’s conclusions must be supported with substantial evidence).

II. Comments on Initial Study
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The IS contends that the Project would have a less than significant impact to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the conclusion is not apparent from the discussion, facts, and circumstances.

The conclusion relies on compliance with applicable regulations and the fact that “the number of materials that would be handled at any one time for the proposed warehouse operations would be relatively small” (IS p. 20). However, the proposed over 500,000 square foot last-mile fulfillment warehouse has capacity to handle more than ‘a relatively small number of materials.’ Furthermore, the IS concedes that the tenant and thereby the nature and amount of goods to be transported, stored, processed, and shipped is unknown. To meet CEQA’s informational purposes, the City should further evaluate the issue in the DEIR.

3 III. General Comments
i) Air Quality & Public Health: CREED LA has a particular interest in air quality and public health. Estimates of the significance of air quality impacts must be consistent with current epidemiological studies regarding the effects of pollution and various kinds of environmental stress on public health. The proposed Project would be exclusively truck-served and operate 24- hours a day, 365 days a year in day and night shifts. In addition, since the facility will be a last- mile fulfillment center, we can reasonably expect high frequency high impact diesel truck traffic due to loading and unloading of products at the warehouse.

Therefore, even if the immediate project area has few nearby residences, the DEIR must include a Health Risk Assessment (HRA). This is particularly important because of the adverse impact of logistics facilities on community health including carbon dioxide emissions caused by storage and material handling processes in warehouses.1 We must not ignore the unjust consequences of toxic pollution on surrounding communities and workers. ii) Transportation Analysis: In order to reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure, the transportation analysis must consider all reasonably foreseeable uses for the Project. Since the Project is a “speculative building” with no specific identified tenant, the DEIR analysis should include higher intensity uses. The analysis must also include heavy truck traffic in its VMT analysis.
iii) Cold Storage Industrial Use: Since the Project includes a cold storage, it is likely that trucks and trailers going in and out of the Project site would be equipped with transport refrigeration units (TRU). The TRUs would emit large quantities of diesel exhaust while operating within the Project site. The City should model air pollutant emissions from on-site TRUs in the DEIR and include potential cancer risks to nearby residences and other sensitive receptors from on-site TRUs in the HRA.
iv) Mitigation measures: Mitigation measures must be effective and enforceable. Every effort must be made to incorporate modern technology in the mitigation measures and MMRP. For example, a requirement that all off-road equipment and trucks using the site during construction and operations be zero emission, near-zero emissions or alternative-fueled vehicle would both reduce and/or eliminate air pollution impacts and CO2 emissions.

A requirement to utilize natural refrigerant alternatives would reduce the Project’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). As more cold storage warehouses are built, the use of refrigerants with potent greenhouse gas emissions is growing, as is their contribution to global climate change.

Mitigation measures can also include requirements to install cool roofs to reduce operational energy demand, solar canopies on the parking lot, provision of EV charging infrastructure including electrification of loading docks, and measures to reduce urban heat island effect impacts.

1 For example, https://envhealthcenters.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Storing-Harm.pdf https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf

4 v) Substantial Evidence: We expect that the DEIR analysis will refrain from unsupported assumptions and utilize substantial evidence in its analysis of various environmental considerations.
vi) Full Disclosure: Provide all sources and referenced materials when the DEIR is made available.

III. Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit NOP comments. Again, CREED LA respectfully requests under CEQA full analysis of the environmental impacts, feasible mitigation, and reasonable alternatives to the Project.

We look forward to reviewing and commenting on the DEIR.

Sincerely,

Jeff Modrzejewski
Executive Director

April 27, 2022

Mr. Alfonso Hernandez
City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
[email protected]

RE: Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project

This letter is submitted on behalf of the members of Teamsters Local 396 and their families, who live and work throughout Downey. The Teamsters represent hundreds of thousands of workers in the logistics industry. These members not only work in the logistics industry, but very often live in communities impacted by this industry. The Teamsters membership has committed to actively improving the industry not only through improved working conditions, wages, benefits and safety, but also by mitigating and eventually eliminating its negative impacts on the quality of life of our members, their families, and their communities. Teamsters are committed to making sure their workplace is safe and healthy not only for themselves, but for their families and neighbors.

This comment covers matters raised in the Initial Study and recommends areas of concentration for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) proposed for the above-named project.

Prologis (Applicant) is proposing demolishing five buildings, approximately 433,000 square feet of floor area, to construct a 510,110 industrial concrete tilt-up logistics facility and approximately 25,000 additional square feet of ancillary uses (collectively the Project). The property, at the northwest corner of Stewart and Gray Road and Woodruff Avenue (the Site), sits approximately 700 feet from a fairly dense residential neighborhood to the west, beginning on the east side of Coldbrook Avenue. The facility would include cold-storage capacity, allowing for delivery of groceries and other fresh and frozen foodstuffs.

Vehicle Miles Traveled and Traffic
The Initial Study (IS) found that there are potentially significant impacts throughout the area of transportation and traffic. Because of this, the IS calls for preparation of an EIR and therefore a traffic study. We would hope that this traffic study uses existing like facilities, or comparable facilities, to conduct this study, rather than relying exclusively or primarily on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual categorical codes. This is because a facility that will be permitted to allow e-commerce style fulfillment and deliveries, particularly one with cold-storage capacity, will not be adequately understood through use of these categories.

For example, the ITE manual’s category for warehouses with cold storage capacity provides a per-unit (i.e., per 1,000 square foot) trip-generation multiplier of 0.12. In other words, for every 10,000 square feet of cold-storage warehouse there is an assumption of 1.2 trips per day.

This rubric however is more appropriate for warehouses that deliver bulk goods to retail grocers and wholesalers, rather than an e-commerce facility that uses cold storage capacity to fulfill consumers’ orders on a rolling basis throughout the day, seven days a week.

There is a similar issue with the non-cold storage elements of the Project. E-commerce represents a fundamentally new use from traditional warehouses uses, and in particular those currently extant on the site. E- commerce delivery stations generate a different type of traffic, and therefore vehicle miles, than traditional warehouses.

The ITE Manual predicates its assumptions in large part on the number of warehouse employees per square footage of floor space, plus freight deliveries to and from the site of the warehouse. However this is not the character of e- commerce facilities: while there are of course warehouse workers who come to work at the beginning of the shift and do not leave until the end of their shift, there are a considerable number–likely a larger number–of workers who pick up packages, even in passenger vehicles, for delivery directly to consumers throughout the day. This not only significantly increases traffic activity at and around the site, but also impacts residential areas where these vehicles are delivering packages. Not only does it increase the number of vehicles passing through these neighborhoods (and therefore the numbers of vehicle miles traveled) but it also changes traffic patterns in these neighborhoods because of the behavior of vehicles performing numerous deliveries: frequent stopping, driving at lower speeds, idling, and taking up curb space or double parking.

While a particular end user may not have yet been identified, these are all potential uses because they would be permitted within this zoning designation. It is the purpose of CEQA that reasonably foreseeable uses that can result from approval of a discretionary project be studied. We therefore urge the city to include within its transportation analysis all of the foregoing, with particular attention paid to the need to study actually-existing e-commerce style uses, including with cold storage capacity, to accurately understand the impacts of this new type of use.

Economic Impact Study/Urban Decay
While economic impact and urban decay was not outlined in the IS, we believe it warrants future study given the novel form of this use and adverse impact on “brick-and-mortar” (physical location) retailers, and the potential for long- term “dark” (empty) retail space resulting in urban decay which impacts the physical environment, including by contributing to longer vehicle trips and therefore vehicle miles traveled.

We concede that this is a complex question, because the addition of significant amounts of e-commerce delivery capacity to the city has the potential to alter consumer behavior and have a snowballing or cumulative impact on existing retailers over time. For example, particularly given the persistence of COVID-19 pandemic conditions and the related explosion in e-commerce same-day delivery, the ability of e-commerce retailers to satisfy same-day delivery demands of consumers for household goods and groceries that are typically the provenance of brick-and-mortar retailers will steadily increase. In turn, consumer behavior will turn away from brick-and-mortar facilities, causing closures and fewer shopping options (contributing to longer drive times for fewer stores). Once this consumer pattern becomes widely adopted, retail store closures risk becoming persistent and urban decay could result.

We encourage the City to undertake some degree of at least preliminary study of this question.

Air Quality/Energy Consumption
Given the size and intensity of this facility, its potential e-commerce character, and its proximity to several densely populated residential neighborhoods, it is particularly important that the City pay close attention to indirect- source emissions from delivery vehicles, the potential aggravation of existing health effects in the surrounding community, and contemporary, available technologies that can significantly reduce energy consumption. These areas need to be studied with particularity for the environmental impact report to adequately account for the potentially significant impacts of this facility.

Sincerely,

Victor Mineros

Director of Organizing
Teamsters Local 396

Appendix B
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Technical Report
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road
Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Technical Report
September 2023| 04967.00001.001
Submitted to:

City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Prepared for:

Prologis, Inc.
2141 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 1151
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618

This page intentionally left blank

i
Table of Contents
Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Construction Activities and Phasing ................................................................................... 1

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING ..................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 Air Pollutants of Concern ....................................................................................... 2

2.1.2 Federal Air Quality Regulations ............................................................................. 5

2.1.3 California Air Quality Regulations .......................................................................... 7

2.1.4 Local Regulations ................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Greenhouse Gases .............................................................................................................. 9

2.2.1 Climate Change Overview ...................................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Types of Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................. 10

2.2.3 Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulations .................................................................. 12

2.2.4 California Greenhouse Gas Regulations .............................................................. 12

2.2.5 Regional GHG Emission Policies and Plans .......................................................... 17

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Climate and Meteorology ................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................................................... 18

3.3 Existing Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 19

3.3.1 Criteria Pollutants ................................................................................................ 19

3.3.2 Community Health Risks ...................................................................................... 21

3.3.3 Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................... 21

4.0 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA .............................................................................. 22

4.1 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 22

4.1.1 Construction Emissions ........................................................................................ 23

4.1.2 Operation Emissions ............................................................................................ 26

4.1.3 Localized Significance Threshold Methodology ................................................... 27

4.1.4 Health Risk Assessment ....................................................................................... 28

4.2 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................................... 32

4.2.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 32

4.2.2 Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................... 33

ii
Table of Contents (cont.)

5.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 35

5.1 Issue 1: Conflicts With Air Quality Plans ........................................................................... 35

5.1.1 Impacts................................................................................................................. 35

5.1.2 Significance of Impacts ........................................................................................ 35

5.1.3 Mitigation Framework ......................................................................................... 35

5.1.4 Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................... 35

5.2 Issue 2: Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Nonattainment Criteria Pollutants .......................................................................................................................... 36

5.2.1 Impacts................................................................................................................. 36

5.2.2 Significance of Impacts ........................................................................................ 38

5.2.3 Mitigation Framework ......................................................................................... 38

5.2.4 Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................... 38

5.3 Issue 3: Impacts to Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................ 38

5.3.1 Impacts................................................................................................................. 38

5.3.2 Significance of Impacts ........................................................................................ 44

5.3.3 Mitigation Framework ......................................................................................... 44

5.3.4 Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................... 44

5.4 Issue 4: Other Emissions (Such as Those Leading to Odors) ............................................. 45

5.4.1 Impacts................................................................................................................. 45

5.4.2 Significance of Impacts ........................................................................................ 45

5.4.3 Mitigation Framework ......................................................................................... 45

5.4.4 Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................... 45

6.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 45

6.1 Issue 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 45

6.1.1 Construction Emissions ........................................................................................ 45

6.1.2 Operational Emissions ......................................................................................... 46

6.1.3 Significance of Impacts ........................................................................................ 47

6.1.4 Mitigation Framework ......................................................................................... 47

6.1.5 Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................... 47

6.2 Issue 2: Conflict With Applicable Plans Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing GHG Emissions........................................................................................................................... 47

6.2.1 Impacts................................................................................................................. 47

6.2.2 Significance of Impacts ........................................................................................ 48

6.2.3 Mitigation Framework ......................................................................................... 48

6.2.4 Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................... 48

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................ 48

8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 49

iii
Table of Contents (cont.)

LIST OF APPENDICES
A C
alEEMod Output
B HRA Modeling
L

IST OF FIGURES
N
o. Title Follows Page
1 R
egional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................ 2 3 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 2 4 Receptor Locations ........................................................................................................................ 32 L

IST OF TABLES
N
o. Title Page
1 C
ommon Sources and Human Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants .......................................... 3 2 Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................................................................ 5 3 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ......................................................................................... 7 4 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes ................................................................ 11 5 Air Quality Monitoring Data ........................................................................................................... 20 6 Existing Land Use Maximum Daily Emissions ................................................................................ 21 7 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Sector............................................................................ 22 8 Existing Land Use Annual GHG Emissions ...................................................................................... 22 9 Anticipated Construction Schedule ............................................................................................... 24 10 Construction Equipment Assumptions .......................................................................................... 25 11 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 33 12 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ........................................................................................ 37 13 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions ......................................................................................... 37 14 Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions ........................................................................ 39 15 Maximum Incremental Cancer Health Risk ................................................................................... 43 16 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ........................................................................................ 46 17 Net Operational GHG Emissions .................................................................................................... 47

iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos containing material
ADMRT Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool
AERMAP AERMOD terrain preprocessor
AERMOD USEPA gaussian plume air dispersion model
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan

C2F6 hexafluoroethane
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CF4 tetraflouromethane
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
City City of Downey
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CY cubic yard

DEIR draft environmental impact report
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EV electric vehicle

GHG greenhouse gas
GM General Manufacturing
GVW gross vehicle weight
GWP global warming potential

v
Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont.)
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HHDT heavy-heavy duty truck
HRA Health Risk Assessment

I- Interstate
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

kW kilowatts
kWhr kilowatts-hours

LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LHDT light-heavy duty truck
LLG Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers
LOS Level of Service
LST localized significance threshold

MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MEIR maximally exposed individual resident
MEIW maximally exposed individual worker
mg/m
3 milligrams per cubic meter
MHDT medium-heavy duty truck
MMT million metric tons
mpg miles per gallon
mph miles per hour
MT metric tons

N
2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NED National Elevation Dataset
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO nitrogen oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX nitrogen oxides

O
3 ozone
OCPs organochlorine pesticides

Pb lead
PFC perfluorocarbon
PM
10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter ppm parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code

vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont.)
REL Reference Exposure Limit
RMP Risk Management Policy
ROG reactive organic gas
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF Square feet/foot
SF6 hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOX sulfur oxides
SRA source receptor area
SVE soil vapor extraction

TACs toxic air contaminants
TIS Transportation Impact Study
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRU transport refrigeration unit

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an assessment of potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts resulting from implementation of the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (project) located in the City of Downey (City). The project would replace the existing businesses on the project site, remove five existing buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (SF), and construct and operate an approximately 535,685 SF industrial building for warehouse/logistics uses.

The project would be consistent with the General Manufacturing (GM) land use designation in the Downey General Plan Vision 2025. Therefore, the project contribution to regional employment growth would be accounted for in regional planning documents (e.g., general plans, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) used to develop control measures in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The project would not conflict with the 2022 AQMP.

The project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction and operation. In accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust control measures would be required. Project emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors during construction or operation would not exceed the SCAQMD emissions thresholds. Impacts related to cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants in the region would be less than significant.

Project-generated traffic would not result in a carbon monoxide hot spot. Construction and operation of the project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to significant quantities of toxic air contaminants or substantial localized criteria pollutant and precursor concentrations, as analyzed following SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LTSs) Methodology. A health risk assessment (HRA) was conducted to evaluate potential community health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted by off-road construction equipment, construction haul trucks, and trucks related to operation of the proposed warehouse. Community cancer risk, chronic health risk, and cancer burden would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.

The project would not generate other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would affect a substantial number of people.

GHG emissions resulting from construction and operation of the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s screening threshold for non-industrial facilities. The project would not conflict with any applicable GHG emission reduction plans. Impacts related to GHG emissions and conflicts with GHG emission reduction plans and policies would be less than significant.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

ES-2

This page intentionally left blank
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents an assessment of potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (project). This report has been prepared to support an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000 et seq.); State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, §15000 et seq.).

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 29.16-acre project site is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Downey (City) in southwestern Los Angeles County. The project site is located approximately ten miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and nine miles northwest of the County of Orange. Regional access is provided via the following freeways: the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5 [I-5]), the San Gabriel Freeway (I-605), the Century Freeway (I-105), and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710). Primary vehicular access to the project site is provided by Stewart and Gray Road, Woodruff Avenue, and Hall Road. The project site is within the western Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality in the project area is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). See Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project would remove existing buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (SF) on the project site, and construct and operate an approximately 535,685-SF industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The project would include 683 auto parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces and 109 dock loading doors. The new industrial building would be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage.

Approximately 95 percent of the warehouse (484,605 SF) would be high cube fulfillment and the remaining 5 percent (26,785 SF) would be for cold storage (i.e., refrigerated warehouse space). The facility would also include 20,000 SF of office area and 25,000 SF of mezzanine area within the 535,685-SF building. On-site activities would include storage, distribution, and/or consolidation of manufactured goods, and last-mile fulfillment and delivery; and general industrial/warehouse with refrigeration and cold storage component for the purposes of receiving, storing, shipping of food and/or beverage products. The office space would be used for office uses ancillary to the warehouse operations. See Figure 3, Site Plan. The proposed facility would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The project would also include off-site improvements within the right-of-way of Hall Road and Stewart and Gray Road along the project’s roadway frontage. Off-site improvements would include underground utilities, project site driveway access, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, landscaping, and lighting.

1.3 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PHASING
Construction of the project would begin in Spring 2024 with demolition/site preparation to remove all existing on-site structures, paving, and other improvements. Demolition/site preparation would last approximately 4 to 5 months. Following demolition/site preparation, grading, off-site improvements, construction of the proposed new building, and paving would begin in late spring 2024 and continue for approximately 14 months. Construction activities would finish in Spring 2025. Demolition and site Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

2 preparation would include the removal of the existing structures on the site totaling approximately 433,000 SF. Approximately 75,000 cubic yards (CY) of soil would be exported from the site during grading. As described in the project draft environmental impact report (DEIR), Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, asbestos containing material (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP) has been identified in existing buildings on the project site. In addition, soil vapor testing has identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs) exceeding Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) screening levels. Material handling requirements for demolition activities and disturbance of contaminated soil, and potential impacts to sensitive receptors, are discussed in the Air Quality Impact Analysis, Section 5.3, below.

Project construction would be required to implement all applicable fugitive dust best available control measures specified in Table 1 of the SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust (SCAQMD 2005), including, but not limited to: the use of an on-site water truck to wet down exposed areas at least twice daily, and limiting vehicle speeds to 25 miles per hour (mph).

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING

2.1 AIR QUALITY
The project site is located within the SCAB. Air quality in the SCAB is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the federal level, by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level, and by the SCAQMD at the regional level.

2.1.1 Air Pollutants of Concern

2.1.1.1 Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are defined by state and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the general public. In general, criteria air pollutants include the following compounds:
• Ozone (O3)
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
• Particulate matter (PM), which is further subdivided:
o Coarse PM, 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10)
o Fine PM, 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5)
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
• Lead (Pb)
Criteria pollutants can be emitted directly from sources (primary pollutants; e.g., CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead), or they may be formed through chemical and photochemical reactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere (secondary pollutants; e.g., ozone, NO 2, PM10, and PM2.5). PM10 and PM2.5 can be both
primary and secondary pollutants. The principal precursor pollutants of concern are reactive organic gases ([ROGs] also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs])1 and nitrogen oxides (NOX).

1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably.

^
?

TURA COUNTY
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!! ! !
!!
!
!
!! ! !! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!!
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!!!! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
! !
!!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! !!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!! ! ! !
!
!! ! !!!
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !!!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
San Gab riel M ou nt ain s
!
!
! ! !
!
!!!!! !
! ! !
!
S
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!! ! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! ! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
O
!
! !
R
! !
A
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
N
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
G
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
E CO
!
!
S
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
a
U
n t
N
a
TY
Ana
! !
! !
!
!
!
M
!
o
!
!
u
!
!
n t
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
a
!
i
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
n
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
s
!
!
!
!
! !
!$
Aå
AÝ
:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\AQGHG\Fig1_Regional.mxd 04967.00001.001 11/23/2022 - SAB San Fernando
Valley !"^$
!
Agoura
Hills
IÆ Am
Calabasas
!
!
!
Mal
Aí

BEVERLY
HILLS
Ô? %&l(
T
CA CU
SAN
MONI
A
?×ibu
!
!
C
LVER
ITY
!"`$

TORRANCE
LOS

ANGELES
E
%(&

COMPTON
?Æ
CARSON
!
d
Añ
ACTON
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse

VICTOVILLE
?å
!
?ß
Aå
!
ar
ta
ita
San
Cl
!
Añ

HESPERIA
?×
!"a$ Añ %&(g

BURBANK
I

HOLLYWOOD
Æ
?å

GLENDAL

PASADENA
?× %&(e SAN

GABRIEL
%
%&(o
&g( AZUZA ?øSAN BERNARDINO
ONTARIO ?¥
!"`$ WEST POMONACOVINA
!"`$ %&h(
!"`$
!
?¬ ??z
VERS
z
IDE

INGLEWOOD
DOWNEY
!"^$ WHITTIER
Project S

CHINO RI
ite LA
HABRA
!"a$
%&(q NORWA LK BUENA
PARK ?u
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY
AÆ?lvord
o%&( ?ÆANAHEIM
?Æ
!
CORONA Lake
Mathews
%&h(
VERDES
?Ô

PALOS LONG
BEACH
%&l(
!!

WESTMINSTER
?ì SANT
ANA
A
!"a$
PERRIS
%&l(

HUNTINGT
BEACH
ON
?s
%&l( !"^$
IRV
AÝ
I NE
Lee
Lake
?±
AÎ
E
LAKE Canyon
LSINORE Lake
I
0 10 Miles
K
NEWPOR
BEACH
T
Lake
Elsinore
°
%&h(
!"$Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)
Regional Location
Figure 1
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse
Project Site
:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\AQGHG\Fig2_Aerial.mxd 04967.00001.001 11/23/2022 - SAB Pellet St
Firestone Blvd
Hall Rd
Elm Vista Dr
Coldbrook Ave
Woodruff Ave
Nance Ave
Cee Bee Dr
Stewart And Gray Rd

I
Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2021)300 Feet
K
Aerial Phot
Figure 2
ograph
0 Site Plan
Figure 3
I:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\AQGHG\Fig3_SitePlan.indd 04967.00001.001 11/23/2022 - SAB Source: HPA Architecture 2022
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

3 The descriptions of sources and general health effects for each of the criteria air pollutants are shown in Table 1, Common Sources and Human Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants, based on information provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ([CAPCOA] 2022). Specific adverse health effects on individuals or population groups induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables such as cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., age, gender). Criteria pollutant precursors (ROG and NOX) affect air quality on a regional scale, typically after significant delay and distance from the pollutant source emissions. Health effects related to ozone and NO
2 are, therefore, the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicles traveling to or from the project site (mobile emissions) are distributed nonuniformly in location and time throughout the region, wherever the vehicles may travel. As such, specific health effects from these criteria pollutant emissions cannot be meaningfully correlated to the incremental contribution from the project.

Table 1

COMMON SOURCES AND HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
An odorless, colorless gas formed when
carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver
oxygen to vital tissues, affecting the
cardiovascular and nervous system.

Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can
lead to unconsciousness or death.

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and
industrial sources. Sources include motor
vehicles, electric utilities, and other sources
that burn fuel.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and
heart problems. Precursor to ozone and
acid rain. Contributes to climate change
and nutrient overloading, which
deteriorates water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.

Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.

Common sources of these precursor
pollutants include motor vehicle exhaust,
industrial emissions, gasoline storage and
transport, solvents, paints, and landfills.

Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways;
causes wheezing, coughing, and pain when
inhaling deeply; decreases lung capacity;
aggravates lung and heart problems.

Damages plants; reduces crop yield.

Damages rubber, some textiles, and dyes.

Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Produced by power plants, steel mills,
chemical plants, unpaved roads and parking
lots, wood-burning stoves and fireplaces,
automobiles, and other sources.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or
difficulty breathing; aggravated asthma;
development of chronic bronchitis;
irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks;
and premature death in people with heart
or lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze).

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
A colorless, nonflammable gas formed
when fuel containing sulfur is burned, when
gasoline is extracted from oil, or when
metal is extracted from ore. Examples are
petroleum refineries, cement
manufacturing, metal processing facilities,
locomotives, and ships.

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and
heart problems. In the presence of
moisture and oxygen, sulfur dioxide
converts to sulfuric acid, which can
damage marble, iron, and steel. Damages
crops and natural vegetation. Impairs
visibility. Precursor to acid rain.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

4 Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects Lead Metallic element emitted from metal
refineries, smelters, battery manufacturers,
iron and steel producers, use of leaded
fuels by racing and aircraft industries.

Anemia, high blood pressure, brain and
kidney damage, neurological disorders,
cancer, lowered IQ. Affects animals, plants,
and aquatic ecosystems.

Source: CARB 2023a; USEPA 2023a

2.1.1.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
The Health and Safety Code (§39655, subd. (a).) defines a toxic air contaminant (TAC) as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a TAC. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Diesel Particulate Mater
Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is referred to as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is 2.5 microns or less in diameter (CARB 2023b).

Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a notable effect on California’s population—it is estimated that about 70 percent of total known cancer risk related to air toxics in California is attributable to DPM (CARB 2023b).

Asbestos Containing Material
Asbestos is a mineral fiber that naturally occurs in some rock and soil. Long-term exposure to airborne asbestos fibers has been linked to major health effects including lung cancer; mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that is found in the thin lining of the lung, chest and the abdomen and heart; and asbestosis, a serious progressive, long-term, non-cancer disease of the lungs (USEPA 2023c). Because of its fiber strength and heat resistance, asbestos has been used in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire retardant, primarily in buildings constructed before 1979. Asbestos fibers may be released into the air by the disturbance of ACM during demolition activities. ACMs may be present in building materials such as walls, ceilings, insulation, or fireproofing in older (pre-1979) buildings.

Lead Based Paint
Lead is a naturally occurring metallic element that is found in small amounts in the earth’s crust. In addition to its status as a criteria pollutant, lead is listed as a TAC because, depending on the level and duration of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular system. There is also a probable link between lead exposure and kidney cancer, brain cancer (gliomas), and lung cancer (USEPA 2023d). Lead particulate matter can be emitted during demolition activities that disturb material that contains lead- based paint (LBP), most typically found in structures built before 1978.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

5 Toxics Best Available Control Technology
Diesel powered on-road (highway) trucks are a potential source of DPM. In addition, some transport refrigeration units (TRUs) are powered by a small diesel engine and are a potential source of DPM. TRUs provide cooling for trucks and/or trailers which transport goods requiring refrigeration. The Toxics Best Available Control Technology (T-BACT) for operation of diesel internal combustion engines is compliance with USEPA and CARB emissions standards. All heavy-duty diesel powered on-road vehicles manufactured since 2010 are required to meet USEPA emissions standards, including reductions of emissions of DPM by approximately 90 percent compared to unregulated engines (USEPA 2023c). Diesel powered TRUs are considered nonroad equipment. The USEPA has promulgated multiple tiers of emissions standard (with Tier 4 being the most stringent) for nonroad diesel engines manufactured, depending on engine horsepower and application. CARB regulations require diesel engines used in TRUs, with 25 or more horsepower, sold in California since 2012 to be USEPA Tier 4 Interim certified (CARB 2011).

2.1.2 Federal Air Quality Regulations

2.1.2.1 Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants identified by the USEPA to be of concern with respect to health and welfare of the general public. The USEPA is responsible for enforcing the CAA of 1970 and its 1977 and 1990 Amendments. The CAA required the USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which identify concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air below which no adverse effects on the public health and welfare are anticipated. In response, the USEPA established both primary and secondary standards for several criteria pollutants.

Table 2, Ambient Air Quality Standards, shows the federal and state ambient air quality standards for these pollutants.

Table 2

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California
Standards
Federal Standards
Primary1
Federal Standards
Secondary2
O3 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) – –
8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)

0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) Same as Primary
PM10 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 20 µg/m3 – Same as Primary
PM2.5 24 Hour – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3
CO 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) –
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) –
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm (7 mg/m3) – –
NO2 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188 µg/m3) – AAM 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary SO2 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3) – 3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) – –
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

6 Pollutant Averaging
Time
California
Standards
Federal Standards
Primary1
Federal Standards
Secondary2
Lead 30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 – –
Calendar
Quarter
– 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Rolling
3-month Avg.
– 0.15 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per km –
visibility ≥ 10 miles
(0.07 per km – ≥30
miles for Lake Tahoe)
No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Source: CARB 2016
1 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
2 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

O3 = ozone; ppm: parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; CO = carbon monoxide; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; km = kilometer; – = No Standard

The USEPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in “attainment,” “nonattainment,” “maintenance,” or “unclassified” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. Upon attainment of a standard for which an area was previously designated nonattainment, the area will be classified as a maintenance area. If an area is designated unclassified, it is because inadequate air quality data were available as a basis for a nonattainment or attainment designation. The project site is located within the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB and, as such, is in an area designated as a nonattainment area for certain pollutants that are regulated under the CAA.

Table 3, South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status, lists the federal and state attainment status of the SCAB for the criteria pollutants. With respect to federal air quality standards, the USEPA classifies the SCAB as in attainment for PM
10, CO, NO2, SO2, and lead, and in nonattainment for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

7 Table 3

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (O3) (1-hour) (No federal standard) Nonattainment Ozone (O3) (8-hour) Extreme Nonattainment Nonattainment CO (Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment (Maintenance) Attainment Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment (Maintenance) Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment (Maintenance) Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates (No federal standard) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (No federal standard) Attainment
Visibility (No federal standard) Attainment
Source: SCAQMD 2016a

2.1.3 California Air Quality Regulations

2.1.3.1 California Clean Air Act
The federal CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided that they are at least as stringent as federal standards. CARB, a part of the CalEPA, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California, including setting the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). CARB also conducts research, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.

In addition to primary and secondary AAQS, the state has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, CO, NO
2, SO2, and PM. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health. Table 3, above, lists the state attainment status of the SCAB for the criteria pollutants. Under state designation, the SCAB is currently in attainment for CO, NO2, SO2, and lead; and in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

2.1.3.2 State Implementation Plan
The CAA requires areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, inhalable particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide to develop plans, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). SIPs are comprehensive plans that describe how an area will attain the NAAQS. The 1990 amendments to the CAA set deadlines for attainment based on the severity of an area’s air pollution problem.

SIPs are not single documents—they are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (e.g., monitoring, modeling, permitting), district rules, state regulations and federal controls. Many of California’s SIPs rely on a core set of control strategies, including emission standards for cars and heavy trucks, fuel regulations and limits on emissions from consumer products. State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB forwards the SIP revisions to the USEPA for Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

8 approval and publication in the Federal Register. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Chapter I, Part 52, Subpart F, Section 52.220 lists all of the items that are included in the California SIP (CARB 2023c). At any one time, several California submittals are pending USEPA approval.

2.1.3.3 California Energy Code
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion (typically for space and water heating) results primarily in GHG emissions. The California Energy Code is discussed in further detail in Section 2.2.4, below.

2.1.4 Local Regulations

2.1.4.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District
Air quality in the SCAB portion of Los Angeles County is regulated by the SCAQMD. As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), County transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.

Air Quality Management Plan
The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP).

On December 2, 2022, the SCAQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP, which is a regional and multi-agency effort (SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and USEPA). The 2022 AQMP represents a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control measures. The plan seeks to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting reductions in criteria pollutant, GHGs, and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. Included in the 2022 AQMP are updated strategies and control measures to address the designation of the SCAB as an “extreme” nonattainment area for the 2015 NAAQS 8-hour ozone standard. To meet the 2015 NAAQS ozone standard, an additional 67 percent reduction of NO X
will be required compared to the reductions forecast to occur by 2037 (as required by current adopted rules and regulations). Achieving the NOX reductions will require extensive use of zero emission technologies across all stationary and mobile sources. The overwhelming majority of NOX emissions are from heavy-duty trucks, ships and other State and federally regulated mobile sources that are mostly beyond the SCAQMD’s control. The region will not meet the NAAQS ozone standard absent significant federal action. In addition to federal action, the 2022 AQMP requires substantial reliance on future deployment of advanced technologies to meet the NAAQS ozone standard (SCAQMD 2022).

The AQMP, in combination with those from all other California nonattainment areas with serious (or worse) air quality problems, is submitted to CARB, which develops the California SIP. The SIP relies on the same information from SCAG to develop emission inventories and emission reduction strategies that Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

9 are included in the attainment demonstration for the air basin. The current federal and state attainment status for the SCAB is presented above, in Table 3.

Rules and Regulations
The following rules promulgated by the SCAQMD would be applicable to construction and/or operation of the project.

Rule 401 – Visible Emissions: Limits the allowable opacity of air contaminant emissions from any single source (SCAQMD 2001a).

Rule 402 – Nuisance: Prohibits the discharge of air contaminants, including odors, which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons (SCAQMD 1976).

Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust: Requires actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions, including emissions from construction activities. Project construction would be required to implement all applicable fugitive dust best available control measures specified in Table 1 in the rule (SCAQMD 2005).

Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating: Establishes VOC limits for architectural coatings (e.g., paints, stains, preservatives). Effective January 1, 2019, building interior and exterior paint is limited to a maximum VOC content of 50 grams per liter (SCAQMD 2016b).

Rule 1166 – Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil: Sets requirements to control the emission of VOCs from excavating, grading, handling, and treating VOC-contaminated soil as a result of leakage from storage or transfer operations, accidental spillage, or other deposition (SCAQMD 2001b).

Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities: Specifies work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACM. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos- containing waste materials (SCAQMD 2007).

Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule: Requires owners and operators of warehouses with 100,000 SF or more of indoor floor space in a single building to directly reduce NO X and PM emissions, or
to otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities (SCAQMD 2021a).

2.2 GREENHOUSE GASES

2.2.1 Climate Change Overview
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases.

These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

10 GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with: (1) the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and (4) solid waste decomposition.

The temperature record shows a decades-long trend of warming, with 2016 and 2020 global surface temperatures tied for the warmest year on record since 1880 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 2023a). The newest release in long-term warming trends announced 2022 ranked as tied with 2015 for the sixth warmest year on record with an increase of 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit compared to the 1951-1980 average (NASA 2023b). GHG emissions from human activities are the most significant driver of observed climate change since the mid-20th century (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2013). The IPCC constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The statistical models show a “high confidence” that temperature increase caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions could be kept to less than two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels if atmospheric concentrations are stabilized at about 450 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) by
the year 2100 (IPCC 2014).

2.2.2 Types of Greenhouse Gases
The GHGs defined under California’s AB 32 include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is the most important and common anthropogenic GHG. CO2 is an odorless, colorless GHG. Natural sources include the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources of CO2 include burning fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Data from ice cores indicate that CO2 concentrations remained steady prior to the current period for approximately 10,000 years. The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2010 was 390 ppm, 39 percent above the concentration at the start of the Industrial Revolution (approximately 280 ppm in 1750).As of August 2023, the CO2 concentration exceeded 419 ppm, a 51 percent increase since 1750 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2023).

Methane. CH4 is the main component of natural gas used in homes. A natural source of methane is from the decay of organic matter. Geological deposits known as natural gas fields contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from decay of organic material in landfills, fermentation of manure, and cattle digestion.

Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced by both natural and human-related sources. N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic (fatty) acid production, and nitric acid production.

Hydrofluorocarbons. Fluorocarbons are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically nonreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at Earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

11 solvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the 1989 Montreal Protocol.

Sulfur Hexafluoride. SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semi-conductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes that range from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHG emissions to disperse around the globe. Because GHG emissions vary widely in the power of their climatic effects, climate scientists have established a unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO

2. For example, a gas with a GWP of 10 is 10 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. CO2e is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e.

Historically, GHG emission inventories have been calculated using the GWPs from the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). In 2007, IPCC updated the GWP values based on the latest science at the time in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The updated GWPs in the IPCC AR4 have begun to be used in recent GHG emissions inventories. In 2013, IPCC again updated the GWP values based on the latest science in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC 2013). However, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting guidelines for national inventories require the use of GWP values from the AR4. To comply with international reporting standards under the UNFCCC, official emission estimates for California and the U.S. are reported using AR4 GWP values, and statewide and national GHG emission inventories have not yet updated their GWP values to the AR5 values. Project GHG emissions in this analysis are reported using the AR4 GWP values.

By applying the GWP ratios, project related CO
2e emissions can be tabulated in metric tons per year.

Typically, the GWP ratio corresponding to the warming potential of CO2 over a 100-year period is used as a baseline. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 4, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes.

Table 4

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIMES
Greenhouse Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
IPCC

SAR GWP
IPCC
AR4 GWP
IPCC
AR5 GWP
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50-200 1 1 1
Methane (CH4) 12 21 25 28
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 310 298 265
HFC-134a 14 1,300 1,430 1,300
PFC: Tetraflouromethane (CF4) 50,000 6,500 7,390 6,630
PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 9,200 12,200 11,100 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 22,800 23,500
Source: IPCC 2007
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; GWP = global warming potential; HFC = hydrofluorocarbon; PFC = perfluorocarbon

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

12 2.2.3 Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulations

2.2.3.1 Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that CO2 is an air pollutant, as defined under the CAA, and that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. The USEPA announced that GHGs (including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people (USEPA 2023d). This action was a prerequisite to finalizing the USEPA’s GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the USEPA and the United States Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decision published in West Virginia v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency overturned the USEPA’s Clean Power Plan rule which cited Section 111(d) of the CAA for authority to set limits on CO2 emissions from existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants. The June 30, 2022 decision does not overturn the April 2, 2007 decision; however, it may limit the USEPA’s authority to develop rules limiting GHG emissions without clear congressional authorization.

2.2.3.2 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The USEPA and the NHTSA worked together on developing a national program of regulations to reduce GHG emissions and to improve fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. The USEPA established the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the CAA, and the NHTSA established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. On April 1, 2010, the USEPA and NHTSA announced a joint Final Rulemaking that established standards for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. This was followed up on October 15, 2012, when the agencies issued a Final Rulemaking with standards for model years 2017 through 2025. In March 2022, the agencies finalized standards for model years 2024 through 2026 and established an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 miles per gallon (mpg) for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2026.

2.2.4 California Greenhouse Gas Regulations

2.2.4.1 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 CCR Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion (typically for space or water heating) results in GHG emissions.

The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2022 Title 24 standards became effective on January 1, 2023. The 2022 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. New for the 2022 Title 24 standards are non-residential on-site photovoltaic (solar panels) electricity generation requirements, including for new warehouse buildings (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2022).

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

13 The standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of performance standards—the energy budgets—that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are basically a recipe or a checklist compliance approach.

2.2.4.2 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR Title 24, Part 11) is a code with mandatory requirements for all nonresidential buildings (including industrial buildings) and residential buildings for which no other state agency has authority to adopt green building standards. The 2019 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings became effective on January 1, 2020, and the 2022 Standards will become effective on January 1, 2023 (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC] 2022).

The development of CALGreen is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction.

CALGreen contains requirements for storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for the verification that all building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency. CALGreen also contains two levels of voluntary measures (Tier 1 and Tier 2) which go beyond minimum State code requirements. Categories of Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures include: Electric vehicle (EV) designated parking; EV charging infrastructure; cool roofs; efficient outdoor lighting; dock door seals; potable water use reductions; recycled building material content; and resilient flooring.

2.2.4.3 Executive Order S-3-05
On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

2.2.4.4 Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed by AB 32 to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

14 2.2.4.5 Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHGs emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32.

California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.

2.2.4.6 Senate Bill 32
Senate Bill (SB) 32, Amendments to the California Global Warming Solutions Action of 2006, extends California’s GHG emission reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include Section 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by EO B-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed in EO B-30-15 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

2.2.4.7 Assembly Bill 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 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.

2.2.4.8 Assembly Bill 1493 – Vehicular Emissions of Greenhouse Gases AB 1493 (Pavley) requires that CARB develop and adopt regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State.” On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley regulations that intend to reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. The amendments bind California’s enforcement of AB 1493 (starting in 2009), while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. In January 2012, CARB approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single packet of standards called Advanced Clean Cars (CARB 2023d).

2.2.4.9 Assembly Bill 341
The state legislature enacted AB 341 (California Public Resource Code Section 42649.2), increasing the diversion target to 75 percent statewide. AB 341 requires all businesses and public entities that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012 and went into effect on July 1, 2012.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

15 2.2.4.10 Executive Order S-01-07
This EO, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on January 18, 2007, directs that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. It orders that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California and directs CARB to determine whether a LCFS can be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. CARB approved the LCFS as a discrete early action item with a regulation adopted and implemented in April 2010. Although challenged in 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s opinion and rejected arguments that implementing LCFS violates the interstate commerce clause in September 2013. CARB is therefore continuing to implement the LCFS statewide.

2.2.4.11 Senate Bill 350
Approved by Governor Brown on October 7, 2015, SB 350 increases California’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. This will increase the use of Renewables Portfolio Standard eligible resources, including solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal. In addition, large utilities are required to develop and submit Integrated Resource Plans to detail how each entity will meet their customers resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and increase the use of clean energy.

2.2.4.12 Senate Bill 375
SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, supports the State’s climate action goals to reduce GHG emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities.

Under the Sustainable Communities Act, CARB sets regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, CARB established these targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). CARB periodically reviews and updates the targets, as needed.

Each of California’s MPOs must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as an integral part of its regional transportation plan (RTP). The SCS contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet its GHG emission reduction targets. Once adopted by the MPO, the RTP/SCS guides the transportation policies and investments for the region. CARB must review the adopted SCS to confirm and accept the MPO’s determination that the SCS, if implemented, would meet the regional GHG emission targets. If the combination of measures in the SCS would not meet the regional targets, the MPO must prepare a separate alternative planning strategy (APS) to meet the targets. The APS is not a part of the RTP. Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy categorized as “transit priority projects” would receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.

2.2.4.13 Senate Bill 100
Approved by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 extends the renewable electricity procurement goals and requirements of SB 350. SB 100 requires that all retail sale of electricity to California end-use customers be procured from 100 percent eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by the end of 2045.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

16 2.2.4.14 Executive Order N-79-20
EO N-79-20, signed by Governor Newsom on September 23, 2020, establishes three goals for implementation of zero emissions vehicles in California: first, 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emissions by 2035; second, 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state will be zero-emissions vehicles by 2045 for all operations where feasible, and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and third, 100 percent of off-road vehicles and equipment will be zero emissions by 2035 where feasible.

2.2.4.15 Assembly Bill 1279
Approved by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022, AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, declares the policy of the State to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels.

AB 1279 anticipates achieving these policies through direct GHG emissions reductions, removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon capture), and almost complete transition away from fossil fuels.

2.2.4.16 Senate Bill 905
Approved by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022, SB 905, Carbon sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program, requires CARB to establish a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and viability of carbon capture, utilization, or storage technologies and CO
2 removal technologies and facilitate the capture and
sequestration of CO2 from those technologies, where appropriate. SB 905 is an integral part of achieving the state policies mandated in AB 1279.

2.2.4.17 California Air Resources Board: Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan is a strategy CARB develops and updates at least one every five years, as required by AB 32. It lays out the transformations needed across California society and economy to reduce emissions and reach climate targets. The current 2022 Scoping Plan is the third update to the original plan that was adopted in 2008. The initial 2008 Scoping Plan laid out a path to achieve the AB 32 mandate of returning to 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below business as usual. The 2008 Scoping Plan included a mix of incentives, regulations, and carbon pricing, laying out the portfolio approach to addressing climate change and clearly making the case for using multiple tools to meet California’s GHG emission targets. The 2013 Scoping Plan assessed progress toward achieving the 2020 mandate and made the case for addressing short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). The 2017 Scoping Plan also assessed the progress toward achieving the 2020 limit and provided a technologically feasible and cost-effective path to achieving the SB 32 mandate of reducing GHGs by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic 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 SLCPs; support for sustainable development; increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon; and the capture and storage of carbon (CARB 2022).

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

17 2.2.5 Regional GHG Emission Policies and Plans

2.2.5.1 Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG coordinates with various air quality and transportation stakeholders in Southern California to ensure compliance with the federal and state air quality requirements. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460, SCAG has the responsibility of preparing and approving the portions of the AQMP relating to the regional demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies. SCAG is required by law to ensure that transportation activities “conform” to, and are supportive of, the goals of regional and state air quality plans to attain the NAAQS. The RTP/SCS includes transportation programs, measures, and strategies generally designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which are contained in the AQMP. The SCAQMD combines its portion of the AQMP with those prepared by SCAG. The RTP/SCS and Transportation Control Measures, included as Appendix IV-C of the 2016 AQMP for the Air Basin, are based on SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. On October 30, 2020, CARB accepted SCAG’s determination that the SCS meets the applicable state GHG emissions targets.

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is currently completely developed with existing industrial uses comprised of four primary structures, associated parking areas, storage yards, and canopy areas. The existing structures were built between about 1952 and 1973. The project site is surrounded by the following land uses:
• North: Hall Road and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) rail corridor, beyond which are commercial and industrial uses.
• South: Stewart and Gray Road, beyond which are industrial and public utility uses; multi-family residential uses are located further to the southwest.
• East: Adjacent commercial and industrial uses, Woodruff Avenue, additional commercial and industrial uses further east; multi-family residential uses are located further to the northeast beyond the UPRR rail corridor.
• West: Industrial uses, beyond which are multi-family residential uses.

As discussed in the DEIR Section 4.3, due to the historic use of the project site for manufacturing activities, and associated use of hazardous materials in various manufacturing processes, the soil and groundwater beneath the site have been exposed to various constituents that are now the subject of a voluntary cleanup effort by the property owner. More specifically, extensive sampling conducted at the project site indicated the presence of various constituents in each of these media, including VOCs in soil vapor; VOCs, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and metals in soil; and VOCs in groundwater. In order to address these conditions, the property owner is currently in the process of remediating the existing contamination in cooperation with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) through operation of an on-site soil vapor extraction (SVE) system. The SVE system is intended to remove those constituents that exceed allowable concentration limits to Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

18 allow for future redevelopment of the property. Monitoring of soil vapor and groundwater conditions on-site is ongoing with oversight by the RWQCB, and quarterly monitoring reports are submitted to the RWQCB for review to track the progress of the remediation effort. In addition, testing of materials in the existing buildings has shown the presence of ACMs and LBP.

3.1 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY
The project site is in the SCAB, which consists of all or part of four counties: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. It is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around the rest of its perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light, average wind speeds.

The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. Winds in the project area are usually driven by the dominant land/ sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes.

At night, the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling toward the sea. Local canyons can also alter wind direction, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is hampered by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. High pressure systems, such as the semi-permanent high-pressure zone in which the SCAB is located, are characterized by an upper layer of dry air that warms as it descends, restricting the mobility of cooler marine- influenced air near the ground surface, and resulting in the formation of subsidence inversions. Such inversions restrict the vertical dispersion of air pollutants released into the marine layer and, together with strong sunlight, can produce worst-case conditions for the formation of photochemical smog. The basin-wide occurrence of inversions at 3,500 feet above mean sea level or less averages 191 days per year (SCAQMD 1993).

The predominant wind direction in the vicinity of the project site is from the southwest and the average wind speed is approximately 4.7 mph, as measured at the Fullerton Municipal Airport, approximately 9 miles southeast of the project site (Iowa Environmental Mesonet [IEM] 2022). The annual average maximum temperature in the project area, as measured at the Montebello climatic station, approximately 6 miles north of the project site, is approximately 79.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and the annual average minimum temperature is approximately 55.7°F. Total precipitation in the project area averages approximately 14.8 inches annually. Precipitation occurs mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC] 2022).

3.2 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: adults over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005; OEHHA 2015).

Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptor locations. Examples of these sensitive receptor locations are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. Following OEHHA guidance for health risk assessments, the health impacts are analyzed for individual residents assumed to be standing in their primary outdoor spaces closest to the source of TACs from 17 to 21 hours per day Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

19 (depending on the age group) every day for 30 years and for individual off-site workers assumed to be working with moderate intensity outside of a commercial or industrial building for 8 hours per day, 260 days per year. Because of these and other assumptions, health risk assessment are, by design, conservative (health protective).

The closest existing sensitive receptor location to the project site is a single-family home located approximately 240 feet east of the project site, across Hall Road, Woodruff Avenue, and the UPRR corridor. In addition, multi-family residences are located approximately 250 feet southwest of the project site, across Stewart and Gray Road; single-family residences are located approximately 300 feet west of the project site beyond a row of industrial businesses; and multi-family residences are located approximately 320 feet east of the project site, across Woodruff Avenue and the UPRR corridor. The closest school to the project site is the A L Gauldin Elementary School, approximately 2,600 feet (0.5 mile) south of the project site.

3.3 EXISTING AIR QUALITY

3.3.1 Criteria Pollutants

3.3.1.1 Attainment Designations
Attainment designations are discussed in Section 2.1 and Table 2. The SCAB is a federal and state nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone and PM

2.5. The SCAB is also a state nonattainment area for 1-hour ozone and PM10.

3.3.1.2 Monitored Air Quality
The SCAQMD maintains monitoring stations to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants in the SCAB. The nearest monitoring station, approximately 5.2 miles southwest project site, is the Compton- 700 North Bulls Road monitoring station. The closest monitoring station with data for PM10 is the South Long Beach monitoring station, approximately 9.9 miles southwest of the project site. Table 5, Air Quality Monitoring Data, presents a summary of the ambient pollutant concentrations monitored at the two air quality monitoring stations during the most recent three years (2020 through 2022) for which the SCAQMD has reported data.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

20 Table 5

AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA
Pollutant Standard 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3) – Compton Station
Maximum concentration 1-hour period (ppm) 0.152 0.085 0.111 Maximum concentration 8-hour period (ppm) 0.115 0.76 0.085 Days above 1-hour state standard (>0.09 ppm) 3 0 1
Days above 8-hour state/federal standard (>0.070 ppm) 4 1 1 Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) – South Long Beach Station Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 68.7 49.7 50.3
Measured Days above 24-hr state standard (>50 µg/m3) 3 0 0 Measured Days above 24-hr federal standard (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Annual average (µg/m3) * 23.6 *
Exceed state annual standard (20 µg/m3) * Yes *
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Compton Station
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 67.5 102.1 52.8
Measured Days above 24-hour federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 19 12 6 Annual average (µg/m3) 14.7 14.4 14.0
Exceed state and federal annual standard (12 µg/m3) Yes Yes Yes Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – Compton Station
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.072 0.068 0.065
Days above state 1-hour standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Days above federal 1-hour standard (0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
Annual average (ppm) 0.014 0.014 0.014
Exceed annual federal standard (0.053 ppm) No No No
Exceed annual state standard (0.030 ppm) No No No
Source: CARB 2023e
ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, * = insufficient data available.

As shown in Table 5, the 1- and 8-hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards were exceeded numerous times in each of the sample years. Data for NO2 showed no exceedances.

3.3.1.3 Existing Land Use Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Emissions resulting from operation of the industrial businesses on the project site were analyzed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), as described in Section 4.1, below. The calculated existing land use operational criteria pollutant and precursor emissions are shown in Table 6, Existing Land Use Maximum Daily Emissions.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

21 Table 6

EXISTING LAND USE MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
Category VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 12.9 <0.1 18.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 0.2 3.0 2.5 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Mobile 5.1 31.6 52.7 0.3 15.9 4.4
Total Existing Use Daily Emissions1, 2 18.2 34.5 74.0 0.3 16.1 4.6

Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
2 Maximum daily emissions of VOC, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 occur during summer, maximum daily emissions of NOX occur during winter.

3.3.2 Community Health Risks
The SCAQMD has conducted studies on carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics in the SCAB. The most recent is the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V (MATES V). According to the MATES Data Visualization interactive tool, the area around the project site has a cumulative cancer risk from toxic air contaminants of 569 in 1 million. 68 percent of the existing cumulative cancer risk from toxic air contaminants is from DPM (SCAQMD 2023b).

3.3.3 Greenhouse Gases
In 2020, total GHG emissions worldwide were estimated at 50,510 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e emissions (Climate Watch 2023). By country, the U.S. contributed the second largest portion (10.5 percent) of global GHG emissions, behind China with 24.4 percent of global emissions. The total U.S. GHG emissions was 5,290 MMT CO2e in 2020 (Climate Watch 2023). On a national level, approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions were associated with energy, including transportation energy (Climate Watch 2023).

CARB performed statewide inventories for the years 1990 to 2020, as shown in Table 7, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector. The inventory is divided into five broad sectors of economic activity: agriculture, commercial and residential, electricity generation, industrial, and transportation.

Emissions are quantified in MMT CO2e.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

22 Table 7

CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
Emissions (MMT CO2e)
Sector 1990 2000 2010 2020
Agriculture and Forestry 18.9 (4%) 30.8 (8%) 33.6 (8%) 31.6 (8%) Commercial and Residential 44.1 (10%) 44.2 (10%) 46.0 (10%) 38.7 (11%) Electricity Generation 110.5 (26%) 104.7 (20%) 90.3 (20%) 59.5 (16%) Industrial 105.3 (24%) 93.0 (20%) 87.8 (20%) 73.3 (20%) Transportation 150.6 (35%) 175.7 (37%) 162.9 (37%) 135.8 (37%) Unspecified Remaining 1.3 (<1%) 13.4 (5%) 21.6 (5%) 30.2 (8%) Total 430.7 461.8 442.2 369.1
Source: CARB 2007 and CARB 2023f
MMT = million metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

As shown in Table 7, statewide GHG source emissions totaled 431 MMT CO2e in 1990, 462 MMT CO2e in 2000, 442 MMT CO2e in 2010, and 369 MMT CO2e in 2020. Transportation-related emissions consistently contribute the most GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation and industrial emissions (CARB 2007 and CARB 2023f).

3.3.3.1 Existing Land Use GHG Emissions
Emissions resulting from operation of the industrial businesses on the project site were analyzed using CalEEMod, as described in Section 4.1, below. The calculated existing land use operational criteria pollutant and precursor emissions are shown in Table 8, Existing Land Use Annual GHG Emissions.

Table 8

EXISTING LAND USE ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Sources 2024 Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Area 8.8
Energy 1,803
Vehicular (Mobile) 5,552
Solid Waste 166
Water 242
Refrigerants 18.0
Existing Land Use Total1 7,790
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

GHG = greenhouse gas; MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

4.0 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

4.1 METHODOLOGY
Criteria pollutant and GHG emissions for both the proposed project and the existing industrial land use were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1.1.18 CalEEMod is a computer model used to estimate air emissions resulting from land development projects throughout the state of California. CalEEMod Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

23 was developed by CAPCOA in collaboration with the California air quality management and pollution control districts, primarily the SCAQMD. The calculation methodology, source of emission factors used, and default data is described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, and Appendices C, D, and G (CAPCOA 2022).

In brief, CalEEMod is a computer model that estimates criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from mobile (i.e., vehicular) sources, area sources (fireplaces, woodstoves, and landscape maintenance equipment), energy use (electricity and natural gas used in space heating, ventilation, and cooling; lighting; and plug-in appliances), water use and wastewater generation, solid waste disposal, and refrigerants. Emissions are estimated based on land use information input to the model by the user.

In the first module, the user defines the specific land uses that will occur at the project site. The user also selects the appropriate land use setting (urban or rural), operational year, location, climate zone, and utility provider. The input land uses, size features, and population are used throughout CalEEMod in determining default parameters and calculations in each of the subsequent modules. The input land use information consists of land use subtypes (such as the residential subtypes of single-family residential and multi-family medium-rise residential) and their unit or square footage quantities.

Subsequent modules include construction (including off-road vehicle emissions), mobile (on-road vehicle emissions), area sources (architectural coatings [painting], consumer products [cleansers, aerosols, solvents]), water and wastewater, solid waste, and refrigerants. Each module comprises multiple components including an associated mitigation module to account for further reductions in the reported baseline calculations. Other inputs include trip generation rates, trip lengths, vehicle fleet mix (percentage autos, trucks, etc.), trip distribution (percent work to home, etc.), duration of construction phases, construction equipment usage, grading areas, season, and ambient temperature, as well as other parameters.

In various places the user can input additional information and/or override the default assumptions to account for project- or location-specific parameters. For this assessment, the default parameters were not changed unless otherwise noted. The CalEEMod output files are included in Appendix A to this report.

4.1.1 Construction Emissions
CalEEMod has the capability to calculate reductions in construction emissions from the effects of dust control, diesel-engine classifications, and other selected emissions reduction measures. In compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust emissions calculations assume application of water on exposed surface a minimum of two times per day and a speed limit of 25 mph enforced for vehicles traveling on unpaved surfaces.

CalEEMod estimates construction emissions for each year of construction activity based on the annual construction equipment profile and other factors determined as needed to complete all phases of construction by the target completion year. As such, each year of construction activity has varying quantities of GHG emissions. Per SCAQMD guidance, total construction GHG emissions resulting from the project are amortized over 30 years (the anticipated period before the project building would require replacement or significant renovation) and added to operational GHG emissions.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

24 4.1.1.1 Construction Activities
Construction emissions were estimated based on the timeline provided by the project applicant, which assumes construction would commence with demolition/site preparation in February 2024. Off-site improvements, paving, and architectural coatings (e.g., painting) occur concurrently with building construction. The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction activity is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of: (1) a more modern and cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in CalEEMod; and/or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).

Construction is assumed to occur five days per week with equipment operating up to eight hours per day. The construction schedule assumed in the modeling is shown in Table 9, Anticipated Construction Schedule.

Table 9

ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction Activity Construction Period
Start
Construction Period
End
Number of
Working Days
Demolition/Site Preparation 2/9/2024 5/23/2024 75
Grading/ Underground Utilities 5/24/2024 7/18/2024 40
Off-Site Underground Utilities 6/3/2024 10/18/2024 100
Building Construction 7/19/2024 3/31/2025 182
Off-Site Driveways and Sidewalks 10//24/2024 12/12/2024 37 Architectural Coatings 1/28/2025 3/31/2025 45
Paving 2/7/2025 3/6/2025 20
Source: CalEEMod (complete data is provided in Appendix A)

4.1.1.2 Construction Off-Road Equipment
Construction would require the use of heavy off-road equipment. Construction equipment estimates for other activities estimates are based on default values in CalEEMod, with additional equipment added for excavation for underground utilities (based on assumptions used for similar projects). Table 10, Construction Equipment Assumptions, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each stage of construction.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

25 Table 10

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Equipment Horsepower Number Hours/Day
Demolition/Site Preparation
Concrete/Industrial Saws 33 1 8
Excavators 36 3 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 367 2 8
Water Trucks 376 1 4
Grading/Underground Utilities
Excavators 36 2 8
Graders 148 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 367 1 8
Scrapers 423 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84 2 8
Water Trucks 376 1 4
Off-Site Underground Utilities
Excavators 36 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84 2 8
Off-Site Driveways and Sidewalks
Excavators 36 2 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 367 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84 2 8
Building Construction
Cranes 367 1 7
Forklifts 82 3 8
Generator Sets 14 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84 3 7
Welders 46 1 8
Water Trucks 376 1 4
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors 37 1 6
Paving
Pavers 81 2 8
Paving Equipment 89 2 8
Rollers 39 2 8
Source: CalEEMod (complete data is provided in Appendix A)

4.1.1.3 Construction On-Road Trips
Worker commute trips and vendor delivery trips were modeled based on CalEEMod defaults. Worker trips are anticipated to vary between 10 and 228 trips per day, depending on construction activity.

Vendor delivery trips would be 90 per day during building construction. Based on model defaults and an estimated 433,000 SF of exiting building area, approximately 2,490 loads (4,980 trips) of debris would be exported during demolition. Based on estimates from the project off-site improvement plan, approximately 31 loads (62 trips) of soil and debris would be exported and approximately 31 loads (62 trips) of aggregate and concrete would be imported during oof-site street improvements. Based on the model default of 16 CY per load, exporting 75,000 CY of soil during grading would require 4,688 loads (9,376 trips). Based on the paved areas shown on the site plan, approximately 1,053 loads (2,106 trips) of aggregate/asphalt would be imported to the project site during paving. The CalEEMod Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

26 default worker, vendor, and haul trip distances were used in the model. Due to the size of the project site, 1,000 feet of every haul truck trip (1 percent of each trip) was assumed to be on an unpaved on-site access road.

4.1.2 Operation Emissions
Operational impacts were estimated using CalEEMod. Operational sources of emissions include area, energy, transportation, water use, solid waste, and refrigerants. Operational emissions are calculated for the earliest anticipated full year of operation—2026.

4.1.2.1 Area Source Emissions
Area sources include emissions from landscaping equipment, the use of consumer products, the reapplication of architectural coatings for maintenance, and hearths. Emissions associated with area sources were estimated using the CalEEMod default values and SCAQMD Rule 1113 architectural coatings VOC of 50 g/L for building envelope coatings and interior flat coatings and 100 g/L for pavement marking.

4.1.2.2 Energy Emissions
Development within the project would use electricity for lighting, heating, and cooling. Direct emissions from the burning of natural gas may result from furnaces, hot water heaters, and appliances. Electricity generation typically entails the combustion of fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal, which is then transmitted to end users. A building’s electricity use is thus associated with the off-site or indirect emission of GHGs at the source of electricity generation (power plant). The 2022 Title 24 standards include the requirement for on-site solar electricity generation which would be applicable to the project.

The minimum amount of solar electricity generated to meet the 2022 Tile 24 standards is based on climate zone and the building’s conditioned floor area (the floor space that would include heating or air conditioning). Because the amount of project warehouse space that would be conditioned was uncertain at the time of this analysis, to be conservative, no energy use reductions resulting from project solar panels were included in the modeling. The project’s and the existing land use’s energy use was modeled using CalEEMod defaults.

The project would include EV charging infrastructure in accordance with CalGreen requirements.

Including EV infrastructure in a development project is generally accepted as a GHG emission reduction measure. Adding EV charging infrastructure to a development project would not result in increased GHG emissions in the region. Without the project including EV infrastructure, EV owners would either charge their vehicles somewhere else, resulting in similar electricity use, or they would choose to use conventional vehicles, resulting in higher GHG emissions. Therefore, project electricity use for EV charging is not included in this analysis.

4.1.2.3 Vehicular (Mobile) Sources
Operational emissions from mobile source emissions are associated with project-related vehicle trip generation and trip length. Based on the trip generation rate from the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the project, the project fulfillment center warehouse (including the office and mezzanine space) would generate 3,277 average daily trips (ADT; 3,179 passenger car trips and 98 truck trips) and the project cold storage warehouse space would generate 57 ADT (Linscott Law & Greenspan [LLG] 2023). Passenger car trip purposes and distances were modeled using CalEEMod defaults. The TIS Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

27 reported that project high-cube fulfillment center truck ADT would consist of 16 two-axle trucks, 20 three-axle trucks, and 62 four or more axle trucks. Two-axle trucks were assumed to be light-heavy duty (LHDT2; 10,000 to 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight [GVW]). Three-axle trucks were assumed to be medium-heavy duty (MHDT; 14,000 to 33,000 GVW). Four or more axle trucks were assumed to be heavy-heavy duty (HHDT; greater than 33,000 GVW). The TIS did not analyze truck percentages for the cold storage warehouse trips. The cold storage warehouse truck trips were determined from data in the study High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, prepared for SCAQMD, which reports that the cold-storage warehouse average vehicle mix is approximately 39.5 percent trucks (Institute of Transport Engineers 2016). The fleet mix for project truck trips was set in CalEEMod to match the TIS and SCAQMD analysis truck mix. All truck trips were assumed to be primary (no diverted or pass-by trip reductions). Truck trip distances were modeled using the SCAQMD recommended distance of 40 miles for warehouse projects, assuming that only the local portion of each trip (local delivery or highway access) would result in new VMT to the region (SCAQMD 2021b).

Trip generation for the existing industrial land use was modeled using the trip generation presented in the TIS which concluded that the existing land use generates 2,109 ADT. The existing land use trips consist of 1,291 passenger car trips and 818 truck trips (90 2-axle truck trips, 294 3-axle truck trips, and 434 4- or more axle truck trips; LLG 2023). The CalEEMod default trip distances were used for the exiting land use trips.

4.1.2.4 Solid Waste Sources
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from anaerobic decomposition in landfills, incineration, and transportation of waste. CalEEMod determines the GHG emissions associated with disposal of solid waste into landfills. Portions of these emissions are biogenic. CalEEMod methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the IPCC method using the degradable organic content of waste.

4.1.2.5 Water Sources
Water-related GHG emissions are from the conveyance and treatment of water. CalEEMod uses the CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California to establish default water-related emission factors.

4.1.2.6 Refrigerants
Refrigerants are substances used in equipment for air conditioning and refrigeration. Most of the refrigerants used today are HFCs or blends of gases containing HFCs. CalEEMod quantifies refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the equipment lifetime.

4.1.3 Localized Significance Threshold Methodology
As part of the SCAQMD’s environmental justice program, more attention has been focused on localized air quality effects. Also, while regional impact analysis is based on attaining or maintaining regional emissions standards, localized impact analysis compares the concentration of a pollutant at a receptor site to a health-based standard.

SCAQMD has developed a localized significance threshold (LST) methodology and mass rate look-up tables by source receptor area (SRA) that can be used by public agencies to determine whether a project Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

28 may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. 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; they are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA (SCAQMD 2009). The LST methodology translates the concentration standards into emissions thresholds that are a function of project site area, source to receptor distance, and the location within the SCAB. The LST methodology is recommended to be limited to projects of 5 acres or less and to avoid the need for complex dispersion modeling. For projects that exceed 5 acres, such as the proposed project, the 5-acre LST look-up values can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on-site emissions would occur within a 5-acre area and over-predicts potential localized impacts (i.e., more pollutant emissions occurring within a smaller area and within closer proximity to potential sensitive receptors). If a project exceeds the LST look up values, then the SCAQMD recommends that project-specific localized air quality modeling be performed.

The proposed project is within SRA 5, Southeast Los Angeles County. The closest sensitive receptor is a single-family residence 240 feet east of the project site. Therefore, the LSTs in SRA 5 for project sites of 5 acres with receptors located between 50 and 100 meters (164 to 328 feet) are used in this analysis.

4.1.4 Health Risk Assessment
A health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared to analyze potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors and off-site workers from the emission of DPM during construction and operation of the proposed warehouse in accordance with applicable portions of the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2015), and applicable portions of the SCAQMD’s Modeling Guidance for AERMOD (SCAQMD 2023b). HRA modeling inputs and outputs are included in Appendix B, HRA Modeling, to this report.

4.1.4.1 TAC Emissions
Available air quality models and complications of emissions factors do not include DPM emissions.

However, because nearly all DPM consists of particles 10 microns in diameter or less, DPM emissions are approximately equal to PM10 exhaust emissions from diesel engines. All DPM emissions calculations used in the project HRA were based on PM10 exhaust emissions.

Calculations of off-road construction DPM were based on CalEEMod reported PM10 exhaust emissions reported for each construction activity. Emissions of DPM from trucks traveling to and from the project warehouse were calculated using emission factors from CARB’s EMFAC2021 version 1.0.2 online database (CARB 2023g) and the haul tuck trips described in Section 4.1.1, above. All haul trucks were assumed to be heavy-heavy duty (HHDT; greater than 33,000 GVR). Trucks on public road surrounding the project site were assumed to be traveling at the posted speed limit (35 mph for Hall Road and 40 mph for Stewart and Gray Road). In addition, each haul truck entering the project site was assumed to idle for the maximum allowable 5 minutes (per California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 13, Section 2485). Haul truck idling emissions were assumed to be approximately equivalent to truck emissions at 5 mph.

Calculations of operational DPM emissions were based on the project truck trip generation estimate and the project truck trip distribution described in the project TIS (LLG 2023). All trucks were assumed be traveling at the average posted speed limit for each modeled roadway segment. Trucks entering and Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

29 exiting the project driveways and circulating within the project site were assumed to be traveling at 15 mph. All trucks were assumed to idle at the loading docks for the maximum allowable 5 minutes after arriving and again before leaving the project site, plus two additional minutes corresponding to low- speed maneuvering in the loading dock areas. Truck idling emissions were assumed to be approximately equivalent to truck emissions at 5 mph.

Emissions of DPM from trucks traveling to and from the project warehouse were calculated using emission factors from CARB’s EMFAC2021 version 1.0.2 online database (CARB 2023g). The truck fleet mix was estimated from the project TIS which reported that the project high-cube fulfillment center truck ADT would consist of 16 two-axle trucks, 20 three-axle trucks, and 62 four or more axle trucks (LLG 2023). Two-axle trucks were assumed to be light-heavy duty (LHDT2; 10,000 to 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight [GVW]). Three-axle trucks were assumed to be medium-heavy duty (MHDT; 14,000 to 33,000 GVR). Four or more axle trucks were assumed to be HHDT. The TIS did not analyze truck percentages for the cold storage warehouse trips. The cold storage warehouse truck trips were determined from data in the study High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, prepared for SCAQMD, which reports that the cold-storage warehouse average vehicle mix is approximately

39.5 percent trucks (Institute of Transport Engineers 2016), or 23 ADT (20 trucks would be HHDT and the remaining were assumed to be MHDT).

All trucks associated with the project’s cold-storage warehouse space (23 ADT) were assumed to be equipped with a TRU. Although a small percentage of TRUs currently in service are capable of running off of batteries, to be conservative (health protective), all TRUs were assumed to be directly powered by a diesel engine or be electrically powered and supplied by a diesel-powered generator mounted on the truck or trailer.

Emissions of DPM for TRUs were calculated using emission factors from CARB’s OFFROAD2021 version

1.0.5 online database (CARB 2023g). OFFROAD 2021 contains population and emission data for TRUs directly powered by a diesel engine, and for TRUs supplied by a diesel-powered generator. TRUs were assumed to operate for an average total of 4 hours at the loading dock before and/or after unloading/loading.

4.1.4.2 Dispersion Modeling
Localized concentrations of DPM were modeled using Lakes AERMOD View version 10.2.1. The Lakes program utilizes the USEPA‘s AERMOD gaussian air dispersion model version 2111. Plot files from AERMOD using unitized emissions (one gram per second) for each DPM source were imported into CARB’s Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP), Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT) version 22118. The ADMRT calculated ground-level concentrations of DPM utilizing the imported plot files and the annual and hourly emissions inventory. The modeling input and output are included in Appendix B to this report
Source Parameters
Because most of the off-road diesel equipment anticipated to be used for project emissions are mobile and exact location of use on the project site cannot be reasonably determined, off-road equipment emissions and haul truck idling emissions were modeled as an area source corresponding to the project site minus a 2-meter (6.5 feet) setback from the property line (to account for a portion of the equipment width). Off-road equipment emissions were assumed to be emitted at an average height of 3 meters (9.8 feet) corresponding to the typical exhaust stack height for heavy off-road construction equipment.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

30 Construction haul trucks and operational warehouse trucks traveling streets around the project site, on project driveways, and within the project site were modeled as line volume sources following methodology/calculations recommended in the USEPA Haul Road Workgroup Final Report, using an average truck height of 4 meters (13.1 feet), the average road width for on-street travel, and an average truck width of 2.6 meters (8.5 feet) for driveways and on-stie circulation (USEPA 2011). Two construction haul routes were modeled assuming haul trucks would access I-605 from Firestone Avenue:
50 percent of truck entering/leaving the project site east on Hall Road, turning north on Woodruff Avenue, then turning southeast on Firestone Boulevard; and 50 percent of trucks entering/leaving the project site east on Stewart and Gray Road, then turning southeast on Firestone Boulevard. Operational warehouse trucks were modeled traveling on the routes extending up to 500 meters from the project site (0.3 mile), as identified in the TIS: Hall road from the northwest project driveway to Woodruff Avenue; Woodruff Avenue from Hall road to Firestone Boulevard; Firestone Boulevard from Woodruff Avenue to southeast approximately 300 meters (0.2 mile); Stewart and Gray Road from the west project driveway to approximately 300 meters (0.2) mile west of the project site; Stweart and Gray Road along the project frontage; Stewart and Gray Road from the project east driveway to approximately 300 meters (0.2 mile) east of Woodruff Avenue; and Woodruff Avenue to approximately 300 meters (0.2 mile) south of Stewart and Gray Road.

Trucks parked in the loading dock area and parking area were modeled as volume sources with a 25-meter (82-foot) wide base and a height of 4 meters (13.1 feet). Five identical volume sources were placed in the project building loading dock areas: two on the east side, two on the west side, and one on the north side.

Emissions of DPM would not be constant throughout the day. For construction emissions, variable emissions were used assuming construction would occur from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.

For operational emissions, the volume of trucks entering and exiting the site would vary by hour of the day and day of the week. However, since the project is assumed to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, the truck volume was assumed to be steady throughout all hours of the day and week. This modeling assumption is generally conservative (health protective).

Meteorological Data
SCAQMD provides pre-processed meteorological data suitable for use with AERMOD (SCAQMD 2017).

The available data set recommended by SCAQMD for the project area was from the Pico Rivera station, approximately 4 miles northeast of the project site. A wind rose for the Pico Rivera station shows an average wind speed of 4.5 mph from the southwest (SCAQMD 2017). The wind rose graphics are included in Appendix B to this report. The Pico Rivera station set includes 5 years of data collected between 2010 and 2016. Urban dispersion coefficients with a Los Angeles County population of 9,818,605 were selected in the model in accordance with SCAQMD modeling recommendations (SCAQMD 2023b).

Terrain Data
United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED) files with a 10-meter resolution covering an area approximately one kilometer by one kilometer around the project site were used in the model to cover the analysis area. Terrain data was imported to the model using AERMAP, a terrain preprocessing program for AERMOD.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

31 Receptor Modeling
To develop risk isopleths (linear contours showing equal level of risk), receptors were placed in a cartesian grid 1,300 meters by 1,300 meters (approximately 0.8 mile by 0.8), centered on the project site with a grid spacing of 50 meters (164 feet), in accordance with the SCAQMD guide recommendations (SCAQMD 2023b). To ensure the area of maximum off-site impact was captured, receptors were placed along the project boundary at 20-meter (66 feet) intervals. Additional discrete receptors were placed at the closest primary outdoor spaces for the 8 closest residences around the project site (including residences near the project ruck routes on Hall Road and Woodruff Avenue) and 7 closest worker locations (commercial or industrial buildings). See Figure 4, Receptor Locations, for the modeled discrete receptor locations relative to the project site and modeled sources.

4.1.4.3 Risk Determination
Health risks resulting from localized concentration of DPM were estimated using the ADMRT. The latest cancer slope factors and chronic Reference Exposure Limits (RELs), and exposure paths for all TACs designated by CARB are included in ADMRT. For the residential cancer risk, an exposure duration of 30 years was selected in accordance with the OEHHA (2015) guidelines.

The model conservatively assumes that residents would be standing and breathing outdoors at the location of the property line closest to the project every day between 17 and 21 hours per day (depending on the age group, starting with infants in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy) for 30 years. The Risk Management Policy (RMP) using the derived method for the intake rate percentile was selected in accordance with the SCAQMD guide recommendations (SCAQMD 2023b). For off-site worker cancer risk, an exposure duration of 25 years was selected with an assumption of 8 hours per day, 5 days per week of exposure while standing outside with moderate intensity breathing rates, in accordance with the OEHHA guidelines. Because DPM only has an inhalation cancer slope factor and an inhalation chronic REL, only the cancer risk and chronic risk from exposure to DPM was evaluated (acute risk and 8-hour chronic risk would be zero), and only the inhalations pathway was evaluated. The risk modeling input and output is included in Appendix B to this report.

Because the most intensive use of heavy construction equipment would occur during demolition/site preparation and grading activities, potential health risks for construction were modeled in two periods:
construction period 1 (demolition/site preparation and grading) is anticipated to last 5.3 months and was modeled using the minimum exposure duration of 6 months (0.5 year) available in the ADMRT, starting with infants in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy for residential risks and age 16 for worker risks; and construction period 2 (off-site improvements, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving) ) is anticipated to last 8.3 months and was modeled using an exposure duration of

0.7 year starting at age 0 for residential risks and age 16 for worker risks. The remaining exposure period was modeled using operational emissions starting in 2026 and lasting 29 years for residential risks starting at age 1, and 24 years for worker risks starting at age 17. Total health risks were calculated by summing the construction period 1, construction period 2, and operational risks for each receptor.

Cancer burden evaluates an overall population’s increased cancer risk and is defined as the increases in cancer cases in the population due exposure to TACs from a project. Cancer burden is calculated differently from individual risk. Per OEHHA, cancer burden uses a 70-year exposure to evaluate population-wide cancer risk, and the cancer burden only evaluates residential exposure (not worksites).

Cancer burden is calculated by multiplying the number of residents exposed to an incremental excess Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

32 cancer risk of 1 in 1 million or greater by the estimated incremental excess cancer risk of the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR).

4.2 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

4.2.1 Air Quality
Thresholds used to evaluate potential air quality and odor impacts are based on applicable criteria in the State’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G. A significant air quality and/or odor impact could occur if the implementation of the proposed project would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan, or applicable portions of the SIP; or

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is non-attainment under an applicable NAAQS or CAAQS; or

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional and localized impacts of project-related air pollutant emissions. The significance thresholds are updated, as needed, to appropriately represent the most current technical information and attainment status in the SCAB. Table 11, SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance, presents the most current significance thresholds, including regional daily thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational emissions; maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs; and maximum ambient concentrations for exposure of sensitive receptors to localized pollutants. A project with daily emission rates, risk values, or concentrations below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant effect on air quality.

Col
ute
Iz tta Av e e

Firestone Blvd
Stonew oodSt
3rdSt
Nash Ave
Mc Cahill St
State Ro
Marbel Ave

Iowa St
Margaret St
Project Site
! l t i lly Exposed Indiv dual Resident (MEI )( Mode ed Recep or - Max ma i R !( Modeled Residential Receptor
!( Modeled Receptor - Maximally Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW) !( Modeled Worker Receptor
!( Point of Maximum Impact (PMI)
Sensitive Areas
Residence
!5(
:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\AQGHG\Fig4_ReceptorLocs.mxd 04967.00001.001 9/21/2023 - SAB dbrook Ave
Raebert St
Buckles St
Bellflower Blvd
Corrigan Ave
Adenmoor Ave
!6(
42 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse
Buell St
Fostoria St
Cecilia St
CordAve
Hall Rd
!5(
!(
!4(
!6( !4( !3(
PangbornAve
Pellet St
Nance Ave
Na nceSt
Hasty Ave
Casanes Ave
!7 !(2(
!7( !8( !3(
!1(
Stewart And Gray Rd
!2(
!1(
Elm Vista Dr
Washburn Rd
Cornuta Ave Eastbrook Ave Dunrobin Ave
RegentViewSt
Woodruff Ave
Cee Bee Dr
I
Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2021)600 Feet
Figure 4
Receptor Locations
K
0 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

33 Table 11

SCAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Pollutant Construction Operation
Mass Daily Thresholds (pounds per day)
VOC 75 55
NOX 100 55
CO 550 550
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOX 150 150
Lead 3 3

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases
(in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million)
Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants
NO2 1-hour average ≥ 0.18 ppm
Annual average ≥ 0.03 ppm
CO 1-hour average ≥ 20.0 ppm (state)
8-hour average ≥ 9.0 ppm (state/federal)
PM10
24-hour average ≥ 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)
24-hour average ≥ 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
Annual average ≥ 1.0 µg/m3
PM2.5 24-hour average ≥ 10.4 µg/m3 (construction)
24-hour average ≥ 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)
SO2 1-hour average ≥ 0.075 ppm
24-hour average ≥ 0.04 ppm
Source: SCAQMD 2019
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SOX = sulfur oxides; TACs = toxic air contaminants; GHG = greenhouse gas; MT/yr = metric tons per year; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

4.2.2 Greenhouse Gases
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a typical development in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual development projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Therefore, the potential for a significant GHG emissions impact is limited to cumulative impacts.

According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
(1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

34 (2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The determination of significance is governed by CEQA Guidelines 15064.4, entitled “Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states, “[t]he determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in Section 15064. A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to … [use a quantitative model or qualitative model]” (emphasis added). In turn, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) clarifies that a lead agency should consider “Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.” Therefore, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, the GHG emissions analysis for the project appropriately relies upon a threshold based on the exercise of careful judgement and believed to be appropriate in the context of this project.

On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted their Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans for projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency.

The SCAQMD’s interim GHG significance threshold uses a tiered approach to determining significance.

Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG emission reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. Tier 3 establishes a screening significance threshold level to determine significance using a 90 percent emission capture rate approach. Tier 4, to be based on performance standards, is yet to be developed. Under Tier 5 the project proponent would allow offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level.

For industrial projects with emissions primarily from stationary sources, the SCAMD has adopted a threshold of 10,000 MT CO
2e per year. The SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general development projects. The most recent proposal issued in September 2010 uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG emission impacts from various uses. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MT CO2e/year), commercial projects (1,400 MT CO2e/year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MT CO2e/year). Under option 2, a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year would be used for all non-industrial projects. These thresholds have not been adopted by the SCAQMD or distributed for widespread public review and comment, and the working group tasked with developing the thresholds has not met since September 2010. The future schedule and likelihood of threshold adoption is uncertain.

If the CARB adopts statewide significance thresholds, SCAQMD staff plans to report back to the SCAQMD Governing Board regarding any recommended changes or additions to the SCAQMD’s interim threshold.

As the City does not currently have any approved quantitative thresholds related to GHG emissions, the quantitative analysis provided herein relies upon the SCAQMD proposed screening threshold for non- industrial facility projects of 3,000 MT CO
2e (SCAQMD 2008). Even though a warehouse land use is
considered an industrial use, the emissions are primarily from mobile sources (cars and trucks), not stationary sources. Therefore, to be conservative, the project emissions are compared to the much lower non-industrial screening threshold.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

35 5.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section evaluates potential direct impacts of the proposed project related to the air pollutant emissions. Project-level air quality modeling was completed as part of this analysis. Complete modeling results are included as Appendix A of this report.

5.1 ISSUE 1: CONFLICTS WITH AIR QUALITY PLANS

5.1.1 Impacts
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the RTP/SCS, a long-range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends out over a 20-year period to identify regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. These growth forecasts form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. These documents are utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RTP/SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on regional population and employment growth projections originating with County and City General Plans.
2 Projects that are consistent with the land use designation for their project site are generally consistent with the population and growth assumptions used in the AQMP. The project does not have a residential component and would not result in regional population growth. The project site is designated General Manufacturing (GM) in the Downey General Plan Vision 2025. The project’s proposed warehouse uses (fulfillment center and cold storage) are consistent with the GM land use designation. As such, employment growth in the City as a result of the project, and the related changes in regional emissions, are accounted for in the AQMP, which is crafted to bring the basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.

5.1.2 Significance of Impacts
Implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD’s AQMP, and the impact would be less than significant.

5.1.3 Mitigation Framework
Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

5.1.4 Significance After Mitigation
Impacts related to conflicts with the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant.

2 SCAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the southern California region.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

36 5.2 ISSUE 2: CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF

NONATTAINMENT CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the SCAB. The region is a federal and/or state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and State Clean Air Acts. If a project conflicts with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the SCAB into attainment for all criteria pollutants, that project can be considered cumulatively considerable. Additionally, if the mass regional emissions calculated for a project exceed the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards, that project can be considered cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Issue 1, above, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.

5.2.1 Impacts
The project would generate criteria pollutants and precursors in the short-term during construction and the long-term during operation. To determine whether a project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions that would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, a project’s emissions are evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD (as shown in Table 11).

5.2.1.1 Construction
The project’s construction emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model as described in Section 4.1.1. Additional details of phasing, selection of construction equipment, and other input parameters, including CalEEMod data, are included in Appendix A.

The results of the calculations for project Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction are shown in Table 12, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SCAQMD thresholds.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

37 Table 12

MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
Activity VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Demolition/Site Preparation 3.0 32.6 26.8 <0.1 27.8 4.0 Grading/ Underground Utilities 4.2 56.6 41.3 0.2 78.9 11.2 Concurrent Grading and Off-site
Improvements 4.7 60.8 48.0 0.2 79.2 11.3
Concurrent Off-site Improvements
and Building Construction 3.0 21.4 40.1 <0.1 4.6 1.6
Building Construction 2.5 17.6 30.9 <0.1 4.3 1.5
Concurrent Building Construction,
Architectural Coatings, and Paving 65.2 34.2 47.8 0.1 7.5 2.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 65.2 60.8 48.0 0.2 79.2 11.3
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter

As shown in Table 12, construction period emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds.

5.2.1.2 Operation
The project’s operational emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model as described in Section 4.1.2. Model outputs are provided in Appendix A. Table 13, Maximum Daily Operational Emissions, compares the project’s net maximum daily operational emissions (project emissions minus existing land use emissions) with the SCAQMD thresholds. Detailed modeled existing land use emissions are shown in Section 3.3, above.

Table 13

MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
Category VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 16.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 0.2 2.9 2.4 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Mobile 11.0 24.6 95.6 0.3 26.5 7.0
Project Total Daily Emissions1 27.4 27.5 98.0 0.4 26.7 7.3 Existing Use Daily Emissions (18.2) (34.5) (74.0) (0.3) (16.1) (4.6) Project Net Daily Emissions2 9.2 -7.0 24.0 0.1 10.6 2.7 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
2 Maximum daily emissions of VOC, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 occur during summer, maximum daily emissions of NOX and CO occur during winter.

VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

38 As shown in Table 13, both the project actual daily emissions and the project net emissions (project emissions minus exiting use emissions) during operation of the project would not exceed the daily thresholds set by the SCAQMD. The decrease in NOX emissions as a result of project implementation would be primarily due to the decrease in truck trips from 818 ADT to 123 ADT, as reported in the TIS (LLG 2023).

5.2.2 Significance of Impacts
Short-term construction and long-term operation of the project would not result in criteria pollutant and precursor pollutant emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, and the impact would be less than significant.

5.2.3 Mitigation Framework
Project emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

5.2.4 Significance After Mitigation
The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is non-attainment, and the impact would be less than significant.

5.3 ISSUE 3: IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

5.3.1 Impacts

5.3.1.1 Construction Activities
Criteria Pollutants
The localized effects from the on-site portion of daily construction emissions were evaluated at sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the project according to the SCAQMD’s LST method, described above. The proposed project is within SRA 5, Southeast Los Angeles County. Consistent with the LST guidelines, when quantifying mass emissions for localized analysis, only emissions that occur on site are considered. Emissions related to off-site delivery/haul truck activity and construction worker trips are not considered in the evaluation of construction-related localized impacts, as these mobile emissions are spread along area roadways and are not localized. The closest sensitive receptor is the single-family residence approximately 240 feet east of the project site. Therefore, the LSTs in SRA 5 for project sites of 5 acres with receptors located between 50 and 100 meters (164 to 328 feet) are used in this analysis. Table 14, Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions, shows the localized construction emissions.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

39 Table 14

MAXIMUM LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
Activity NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition/Site Preparation 26.4 23.2 1.1 1.6
Grading/ Underground Utilities 35.8 31.7 5.1 2.8
Building Construction 12.8 14.6 0.6 0.5
Architectural Coatings 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0
Paving 7.5 10.0 0.4 0.3
Concurrent 2025 Building Construction, Paving
and Architectural Coating 20.1 25.6 0.9 0.8
Maximum Daily Emissions 35.8 31.7 5.1 2.8
SCAQMD LST Thresholds (100 meters) 176 2,437 60 15
Exceed LST (100 meters)? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter

As shown in Table 14, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants would remain below their respective SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial localized concentrations of criteria pollutants and precursors.

Asbestos Containing Material and Lead Based Paint
As described in the project DEIR, Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, ACM and LBP have been identified in existing buildings on the project site. The DEIR identified mitigation measures HAZ-2, Asbestos-Containing Material Removal, and HAZ-3, Lead-Based Paint Removal, to ensure the removal, handling, transport, and disposal of ACM and LBP during project demolition activities comply with federal, state, and SCAQMD regulations to prevent airborne asbestos and lead emissions which may affect sensitive receptors or workers in the area. The mitigation measures require removal of ACM by a licensed State of California asbestos abatement contractor, compliance with state asbestos handling regulations (CCR Tile 8, Section 1529), state hazardous waste disposal requirements (CCR Title 22, Division 4.5), and the State Lead Accreditation, Certification and Work Practice Requirements (CCR Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8), and SCAQMD Rule 1403.

VOC Contaminated Soil
As described in the project DEIR, Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, soil vapor testing on the project site has identified VOCs exceeding DTSC screening levels. The DEIR identified mitigation measures HAZ-1, VOC-Contaminated Soil, to monitor for signs of contaminated soil during project demolition and construction activities, identify and test potentially and isolate contaminated, and ensure adequate dust suppressions is employed and ensure the safe removal, handling, transport, and disposal of contaminated soil. DEIR mitigation measure HAZ-1 and compliance with applicable federal and state regulations would ensure VOC emissions from contaminated soil would not adversely affect sensitive receptors and workers in the area.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

40 Diesel Particulate Matter
Implementation of the project would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, on-site generators, and construction worker vehicles. These vehicles and equipment could generate the TAC DPM. Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., at the project site) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the phase of construction (e.g., grading, building construction), the construction-related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed to would also vary throughout the construction period. During some equipment-intensive phases such as grading, construction-related emissions would be higher than other less equipment-intensive phases such as building construction. An HRA was completed to evaluate potential community health risks from exposure to project DPM emissions, as described in Section 4.1.4, above.

The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has with the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed quantity of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is consistent long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from activities such as short-term construction, that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (OEHHA 2015).

The incremental increased cancer risk is an estimate of the chance a person exposed to a specific source of a TAC may have of developing cancer from that exposure beyond the individual’s risk of developing cancer from existing background levels of TACs in the ambient air. For context, the average cancer risk from TACs in the ambient air for an individual living in an urban area of California is 830 in 1 million (CARB 2015). Cancer risk estimates do not mean, and should not be interpreted to mean, that a person will develop cancer from estimated exposures to toxic air pollutants. The results of the construction period HRA incremental excess cancer risks are compared to the SCAQMD threshold in Table 15, Construction Incremental Increased Cancer Risk. The complete HRA results and output are included in Appendix B to this report.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

41 Table 15

CONSTRUCTION INCREMENTAL INCREASED CANCER RISK
Receptor
Construction
Period 1
(chances per
million)1
Construction
Period 2
(chances per
million)2
Total
Construction Risk
(chances per
million)
SCAQMD
Threshold
(chances per
million)
Exceed
Threshold?
R1 1.4 1.1 2.4 10 No
R2 2.4 0.6 3.0 10 No
R3 2.3 1.2 3.5 10 No
R4 3.5 1.7 5.1 10 No
R5 0.8 0.6 1.4 10 No
R6 1.4 1.1 2.5 10 No
R7 1.5 1.2 2.7 10 No
R8 1.4 1.1 2.5 10 No
W1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 10 No
W2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 10 No
W3 0.1 0.1 0.1 10 No
W4 0.1 0.1 0.2 10 No
W5 0.1 <0.1 0.1 10 No
W6 0.1 0.1 0.1 10 No
W7 0.1 0.1 0.1 10 No
Source: Lakes AERMOD View and CARB ADMRT. See Appendix B for the complete HRA results and output. 1 Construction Period 1 = demolition/site preparation and grading (0.5 years). 2 Construction Period 2 = off-site improvements, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving (0.7 years).

As shown in Table 15, the incremental excess cancer risk for off-site modeled residents and workers from exposure to project DPM emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold. The total combined project construction and operational health risks are discussed in the Operational Activities section, below.

Health risks associated with non-cancer chronic effects from TAC exposure are quantified using the maximum hazard index. A hazard index is the potential exposure to a substance divided by the REL (the level at which no adverse effects are expected). A hazard index of less than one indicates no adverse health effects are expected from the potential exposure to the substance. The maximum hazard index is the sum of hazard indices for pollutants with non-cancer health effects that target the same body organ or system. The results of the HRA show that the maximum residential non-cancer chronic maximum hazard index would be 0.01, far below the SCAQMD hazard index threshold of 1. The complete HRA results and output are included in Appendix B to this report.

5.3.1.2 Operational Activities
Criteria Pollutants
As discussed in Section 4.1.3, SCAQMD has developed the LST methodology that can be used by public agencies to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts from on-site emissions of NO
X, CO, PM10 and PM2.5. For project operational activities, emissions of NOX and CO are associated with truck and passenger vehicle emissions which primarily occur off-site. The portion of truck and passenger vehicle emissions which occur on-site are limited to low-speed circulation and idling and would be a small portion of the project operational emissions of 28 pounds Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

42 per day of NOX and 98 pounds per day of CO, far below the applicable LST thresholds of 176 pounds per day NOX and 2,437 pounds per day CO. Operational PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from areas sources (primarily landscape equipment exhaust) and energy sources (natural gas combustion exhaust) would be negligible—less than 0.3 pound per day (see Appendix A). The only remaining on-site operational source of PM emissions would be low-speed circulation and idling exhaust emissions from trucks. The total exhaust PM emissions produced on or near the project site by project-related truck trips would be approximately 1.2 pounds per year (less than 0.001 pounds per day) of PM10 and PM2.5 (see Appendix B), far below the LST threshold of 15 pounds per day for PM10 and 4 pounds per day for PM2.5. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial localized concentrations of NOX or CO. Impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to project operational emissions of PM (primarily DPM) are discussed and evaluated below.

CO Hotspots
Vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. In an urban setting, the highest CO concentrations are generally found in close proximity to congested intersections. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as distance from the emissions source (e.g., congested intersection) increases. Project-generated traffic has the potential of contributing to localized “hotspots” of CO off site. Because CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, exhaust emissions are worse when fossil fueled vehicles are operated inefficiently, such as in stop-and-go traffic or through heavily congested intersections. Because CO disperses rapidly, hotpots are most likely to occur in areas with limited vertical mixing such as tunnels, long underpasses, or below-grade roadways.

The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the SCAB by SCAQMD can be used as a screening tool in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances in the SCAB, and any potential need for further modeling.

CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP where the results of a CO hotspot analysis was conducted for the four worst-case scenario intersections in the Los Angeles metropolitan area at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included (1) Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); (2) Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood); (3) Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and (4) La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). These analyses did not predict a violation of CO standards. The peak modeled CO concentrations due to vehicle emissions occurred at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The 2003 AQMP estimated the 1-hour concentration for this intersection at 4.6 ppm, which indicates the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm) would not likely be exceeded until the daily traffic at the intersection exceeded more than 400,000 vehicles per day (SCAQMD 2003). 3 Therefore, if a project intersection does not exceed 400,000 vehicles per day, then the project does not need to prepare a detailed CO hot spot analysis.

According to the intersection analysis contained in the TIS, the highest volume project-affected intersection would be the intersection of Firestone Boulevard and the I-605 northbound ramps. Based on the peak hour conditions of the intersection under the “Future with Project Conditions,” as provided in the project TIS, the intersection would carry a PM peak hour volume of 4,288 and a daily volume of approximately 45,000 vehicles (LLG 2022), significantly below the daily traffic volumes of 400,000 vehicles per day that would be expected to generate CO concentration exceedances. Based on the studies undertaken for the 2003 AQMP, there is no reason unique to the SCAB meteorology or unique to

3 Based on the ratio of the CO standard (20.0 ppm) and the modeled value (4.6 ppm).

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

43 any project-affected intersection to conclude that the CO concentrations any project-affected intersection would exceed the 1-hour CO standard. Therefore, the project does not trigger the need for a detailed CO hotspots model and the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of CO.

Operational DPM Emissions
Implementation of the project would result in emissions of DPM from operation of a warehouse facility.

To evaluate potential impacts to sensitive receptors from the operational DPM emissions, a HRA was completed, as described in Section 4.1.4, above. According to the trip generation analysis presented in the TIS, the project would result in fewer daily truck trips than the existing industrial land uses on the project site (LLG 2023). However, to be conservative (health protective), the HRA does not consider the DPM emissions from the existing land use, or the community health benefits, that would result from removing the existing industrial land use on the project site.

The maximum estimated community incremental excess cancer risks due to exposure to the project combined 30 year construction and operational DPM emissions are presented in Table 16, Maximum Incremental Cancer Health Risk. These estimates are conservative (health protective) and assume that the resident or worker is outdoors for the entire exposure period (17 to 21 hours per day, every day for 30 years for residents, and 8 hours per day, 260 days per year for 25 years for workers).

Table 16

MAXIMUM INCREMENTAL CANCER HEALTH RISK
Receptor
Construction Risk
(chances per
million)
Operational Risk
(chances per
million)2
Total 30-Year Risk
(chances per
million)3
SCAQMD Threshold
(chances per
million)
Exceed
Threshold?
R1 2.4 0.1 2.5 10 No
R2 3.0 0.2 3.2 10 No
R3 3.5 0.1 3.7 10 No
R4 5.1 0.2 5.3 10 No
R5 1.4 0.1 1.4 10 No
R6 2.5 0.1 2.6 10 No
R7 2.7 0.1 2.8 10 No
R8 2.5 0.1 2.5 10 No
W1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 10 No
W2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 10 No
W3 0.1 <0.1 0.2 10 No
W4 0.2 <0.1 0.3 10 No
W5 0.1 <0.1 0.1 10 No
W6 0.1 0.1 0.2 10 No
W7 0.1 <0.1 0.1 10 No
Source: Lakes AERMOD View and CARB ADMRT. See Appendix B for the complete HRA results and output. 1 Construction exposure duration 1.2 years.
2 Operation exposure duration 29.
3 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As shown in Table 16, the project’s incremental increased cancer risk would not exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in 1 million. The maximum chronic health risk hazard index for all modeled receptors would be than 0.012 and would not exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 1.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

44 The maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) would be receptor R4, located along Woodruff Avenue across the railroad tracks from Hall Road, and would have an incremental increased cancer risk of 5.3 in 1 million. The maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW) would be receptor W4, located outside the commercial building on the northeast side of the project site, and would have an incremental increased cancer risk of 0.3 in 1 million. The point of maximum impact (PMI) would be located at Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates zone 11, 396614 meters east, 3755019 meters north, midway along the project’s northeastern property line on the shoulder of Hall Road. No residents or workers are anticipated to be located at the PMI for extended periods. If a receptor were to be located at the PMI for 30 years, the residential cancer risk would be 20.8 in 1 million.

Cancer burden is calculated by multiplying the number of residents exposed to an incremental excess cancer risk of 1 in 1 million or greater by the estimated incremental excess cancer risk of the maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR). The population exposed to the 1 in 1 million or greater cancer risk was estimated by overlaying the 1 in million 70-year risk isopleth on an aerial images and counting the number of single and multi-family residential building within or touching the isopleth. 92 single family residences and 80 multi-family buildings were identified within or touching the isopleth. The multi- family building ranges in size from duplexes to 40-unit apartment buildings. To be conservative (not underestimating the population), all single-family residences were assumed to house 10 residents, and all multifamily buildings were assumed to have 40 units with 5 residents per unit (200 residents per building), for a total estimated population of 16,920. The 70-year residential cancer risk for the MEIR would be 5.5 in 1 million (5.5 x 10-6). Therefore, the estimated cancer burden from a 1.2 year exposure to project construction emissions plus a 70 year exposure to project operational DPM emissions would be 0.09, below the SCAQMD threshold of 0.5. The cancer burden 1 in 1 million isopleth is included in Appendix B to this report.

5.3.2 Significance of Impacts
Construction of the project would not result in significant localized concentrations of criteria pollutants or TACs. Long-term operation of the project would not result in significant localized concentrations of CO. Long-term combined project construction and operational DPM emissions would not result in cancer risk, chronic health risk, and cancer burden exceeding the respective SCAQMD thresholds.

Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impact less than significant.

5.3.3 Mitigation Framework
Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

5.3.4 Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

45 5.4 ISSUE 4: OTHER EMISSIONS (SUCH AS THOSE LEADING TO ODORS)

5.4.1 Impacts
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding operations (SCAQMD 1993).

The project, involving a warehouse facility development, would not include any of these uses nor are there any of these land uses in the project vicinity.

Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and VOCs from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors; however, these odors would be temporary, intermittent, and not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of construction equipment. Furthermore, short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Long-term operation of the project would not be a substantial source of objectionable odors. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant.

5.4.2 Significance of Impacts
Implementation of the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant.

5.4.3 Mitigation Framework
Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

5.4.4 Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant.

6.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACT

ANALYSIS
This section evaluates potential impacts of the proposed project related to the generation of GHG emissions. Complete modeling results are included as Appendix A of this report.

6.1 ISSUE 1: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

6.1.1 Construction Emissions
Project construction GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model as described in Section 4.1. Project-specific input was based on general information provided in Section 1.0 and default model settings to estimate reasonably conservative conditions. Additional details of phasing, selection Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

46 Year Emissions
(MT CO2e)
2024 1,355
2025 366
Total1 1,721
Phase 1 Amortized Construction Emissions2 57.4
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
2 Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years in accordance with SCAQMD guidance.

GHG = greenhouse gas; MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

6.1.2 Operational Emissions
The project’s operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod model as described in Section 4.1. The project’s net annual GHG emissions, including amortized annual construction emissions and subtracting the existing land use GHG emissions, are shown in Table 18, Net Operational GHG Emissions. Detailed GHG emissions for the existing land use are shown in Section 3.3, above. Appendix A contains the CalEEMod output files for the project and existing land use. of construction equipment, and other input parameters, including CalEEMod data, are included in Appendix A.

Emissions of GHGs related to the construction of the project would be temporary. As shown in Table 17, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions, total GHG emissions associated with construction of the project are estimated at 1,721 MT CO2e. For construction emissions, SCAQMD guidance recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over 30 years and added to operational emissions. Averaged over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 57.4 MT CO2e emissions per year.

Table 17

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

47 Table 18

NET OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Sources 2024 Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Area 11
Energy 1,158
Vehicular (Mobile) 6,436
Solid Waste 157
Water 300
Refrigerants 118
Subtotal1 8,180
Construction (Annualized over 30 years) 57
Project Total1 8,237
Existing Land Use Total (7,790)
Net Project Total1 447
SCAQMD Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

GHG = greenhouse gas; MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

As shown in Table 18, the net project emissions, including amortized construction emissions, would be approximately 447 MT CO2e per year and would not exceed the non-industrial facility SCAQMD GHG screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year.

6.1.3 Significance of Impacts
Project GHG emissions, including amortized construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD industrial screening threshold, and the impact would be less than significant.

6.1.4 Mitigation Framework
Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

6.1.5 Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, and the impact would be less than significant.

6.2 ISSUE 2: CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE PLANS ADOPTED FOR THE

PURPOSE OF REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS

6.2.1 Impacts
There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 would require further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 1279 establishes a state Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

48 goal of net zero GHG emissions by 2045. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the LCFS, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with those plans and regulations.

The project does not have a residential component and would not result in regional population growth and (as discussed in Section 6.1, above) project GHG emissions would decrease compared to the existing land use emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable GHG emissions reduction plan.

6.2.2 Significance of Impacts
The project would not conflict with applicable GHG emission reduction plans including the SCAG’s RTP/SCS and the City’s CAP, and the impact would be less than significant.

6.2.3 Mitigation Framework
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

6.2.4 Significance After Mitigation
The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and the impact would be less than.

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Martin Rolph Air Quality Specialist
Victor Ortiz Senior Air Quality Specialist
Joanne Dramko, AICP Principal Air Quality Specialist

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
16485 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92618

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

49 8.0 REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. User’s Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2023a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards. Accessed September 15.
2023b. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed September 15.
2023c. State Implementation Plan Background. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/california-state-implementation-plans/about. Accessed September 15. 2023d. Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Accessed December. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm. Accessed September 15. 2023e. ADAM Air Quality Data Statistics: Top 4 Summary. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed September 15. 2023f. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed September 15. 2023g. Emissions inventory from on-road and off-road mobile sources in California. Available at:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory/. Accessed September 15. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping- plan-documents.
2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/aaqs2_0.pdf. 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/rma/rmgssat.pdf.
2011. California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 8 Section 2477, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/diesel/tru/documents/fro_10-16-

12.pdf?_ga=2.11187511.2095568124.1639500748-597969877.1605810605. 2007. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory – By Sector and Activity. November 19. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/ghg_inventory_sector_sum_90- 04_AR4.pdf.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

50 California Air Resources Board (CARB; cont.)
2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/Land Use Handbook_0.pdf.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022. CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11). Available at:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. CCR Title 24 Part 6, 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building- energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency.

Climate Watch. 2023. Historical GHG Emissions. Available at: https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg- emissions?source=CAIT. Accessed September 15.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Institute of Transport Engineers. 2016. High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis. October.

Available at: http://library.ite.org/pub/a3e6679a-e3a8-bf38-7f29-2961becdd498.

Iowa Environmental Mesonet (IEM). 2022. Fullerton Municipal Airport Windrose Plot. Available at:
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.phtml?station=FUL&network=CA_ASOS.

Linscott Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG). 2023. Transportation Impact Study Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project. January 19.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA).2023a.

Global Temperature. Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global- temperature/#:~:text=Earth's%20global%20average%20surface%20temperature,average%20fro m%201951%20to%201980. Accessed September 15.
2023b. 2022 Fifth Warmest Year on Record, Warming Trend Continues. January 12. Available at:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-says-2022-fifth-warmest-year-on-record-warming- trend-continues.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2023. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

Available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends. Accessed September 15.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

51 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2023a. MATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health- studies/mates-v. Accessed September 15.
2023b. Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance. Accessed September 15. 2022a. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Adopted December 2. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. 2021a. Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule. May. Available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xxiii/r2305.pdf?sfvrsn=15. 2021b. Second Draft Staff Report Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule.

Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/fbmsm-docs/pr- 2305_sr_2nd-draft_4-7-21_clean.pdf?sfvrsn=8.
2019. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. April. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pfdf?sfvrsn=2.
2017. South Coast AQMD Meteorological Data for AERMOD Applications. Available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/meteorological-data/data-for-aermod. 2016a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. February. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf.
2016b. Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings. Amended February 5. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf?sfvrsn=24. 2009. Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds Look-up Tables. October. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 2008. Interim GHG Significance Threshold. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules- compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/page/2. 2007. Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1403.pdf. 2005. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Amended June 3. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report | September 2023

52 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD; cont.) 2003. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp. 2001a. Rule 401, Visible emissions. Amended November 9. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-401.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 2001b. Rule 1166, Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil.

Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1166.pdf. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
1976. Rule 402, Nuisance. Adopted May 7. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023a. Criteria Air Pollutants. Last updated July 20.

Available at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. 2023b. Learn about Asbestos. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/learn-about- asbestos. Accessed September 15.
2023c. Learn about Lead. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead. Accessed September 15.
2023d. Regulations for Smog, Soot, and Other Air Pollution from Commercial Trucks & Buses.

Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations- smog-soot-and-other-air-pollution-commercial. Accessed September 15. 2023e. Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. Last updated April 25. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climate- change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a.

Accessed September 15.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2020. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light. Corrected July 2020.

Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-04-30/pdf/2020-06967.pdf.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2022. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Montebello, California (045790). Available at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5790.

Accessed September 15.

Appendix A
CalEEMod Output
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
1 / 57
Downey Prologis Project R2 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 Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition/Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading/Underground Utilities (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
2 / 57

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.15. Off-Site Street Utilities (2024) - 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
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
3 / 57

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

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
4 / 57

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

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
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
5 / 57

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

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
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
6 / 57

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

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
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
7 / 57

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Downey Prologis Project R2
Construction Start Date 2/9/2024
Operational Y ear 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.30
Precipitation (days) 8.00
Location 33.92950666018294, -118.11954914567177
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Downey
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4855
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.19

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
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
8 / 57
General Office
Building

20.0 1000sqft 0.46 20,000 0.00 — — —
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

26.8 1000sqft 0.61 26,785 0.00 — — —
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
489 1000sqft 10.6 488,900 77,432 — — —
Parking Lot 682 1000sqft 15.7 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

12.4 1000sqft 0.28 12,360 — — — —

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.69 60.8 47.9 0.18 1.87 77.4 79.2 1.74 9.60 11.3 — 25,111 25,111 1.24 2.73 39.8 25,996 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 65.2 34.2 47.8 0.11 1.22 24.6 25.8 1.13 2.89 3.98 — 18,643 18,643 0.88 1.73 1.02 19,180 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.95 21.4 23.6 0.05 0.73 14.8 15.5 0.68 2.06 2.73 — 7,976 7,976 0.37 0.65 5.90 8,183 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
9 / 57
Unmit. 1.45 3.91 4.30 0.01 0.13 2.70 2.83 0.12 0.38 0.50 — 1,320 1,320 0.06 0.11 0.98 1,355 Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — — Unmit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Average
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 100 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — — Unmit. No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.69 60.8 47.9 0.18 1.87 77.4 79.2 1.74 9.60 11.3 — 25,111 25,111 1.24 2.73 39.8 25,996 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 4.08 32.6 46.1 0.07 1.22 24.6 25.8 1.13 2.89 3.98 — 11,644 11,644 0.49 0.79 0.56 11,835 2025 65.2 34.2 47.8 0.11 0.99 6.50 7.49 0.90 1.63 2.53 — 18,643 18,643 0.88 1.73 1.02 19,180 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.19 21.4 23.6 0.05 0.73 14.8 15.5 0.68 2.06 2.73 — 7,976 7,976 0.37 0.65 5.90 8,183 2025 7.95 3.95 6.60 0.01 0.12 0.85 0.97 0.11 0.21 0.32 — 2,161 2,161 0.10 0.16 2.02 2,213 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.40 3.91 4.30 0.01 0.13 2.70 2.83 0.12 0.38 0.50 — 1,320 1,320 0.06 0.11 0.98 1,355 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
10 / 57
2025 1.45 0.72 1.21 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 0.18 0.02 0.04 0.06 — 358 358 0.02 0.03 0.33 366

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 27.4 26.3 130 0.39 0.61 26.1 26.7 0.58 6.70 7.28 507 46,439 46,945 53.7 3.71 835 50,227 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 23.3 27.5 98.0 0.38 0.57 26.1 26.7 0.55 6.70 7.25 507 45,335 45,842 53.7 3.76 717 49,021 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 25.9 27.9 117 0.38 0.59 26.0 26.6 0.57 6.67 7.24 507 45,672 46,179 53.7 3.76 766 49,408 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.73 5.09 21.3 0.07 0.11 4.74 4.85 0.10 1.22 1.32 83.9 7,562 7,645 8.89 0.62 127 8,180

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11.0 23.2 104 0.37 0.35 26.1 26.5 0.33 6.70 7.03 — 38,578 38,578 1.69 3.08 121 39,659 Area 16.2 0.20 23.8 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 98.0 98.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.4 Energy 0.16 2.85 2.39 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 6,964 6,964 0.64 0.05 — 6,994 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
11 / 57
Water — — — — — — — — — — 235 798 1,034 24.2 0.58 — 1,812 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 271 0.00 271 27.1 0.00 — 949
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 714 714
Total 27.4 26.3 130 0.39 0.61 26.1 26.7 0.58 6.70 7.28 507 46,439 46,945 53.7 3.71 835 50,227 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10.9 24.6 95.6 0.36 0.35 26.1 26.5 0.33 6.70 7.03 — 37,573 37,573 1.74 3.13 3.14 38,551 Area 12.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.16 2.85 2.39 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 6,964 6,964 0.64 0.05 — 6,994 Water — — — — — — — — — — 235 798 1,034 24.2 0.58 — 1,812 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 271 0.00 271 27.1 0.00 — 949
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 714 714
Total 23.3 27.5 98.0 0.38 0.57 26.1 26.7 0.55 6.70 7.25 507 45,335 45,842 53.7 3.76 717 49,021 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10.8 24.9 98.0 0.36 0.35 26.0 26.3 0.33 6.67 7.00 — 37,843 37,843 1.73 3.13 52.3 38,871 Area 14.9 0.14 16.3 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 67.1 67.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 67.4 Energy 0.16 2.85 2.39 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 6,964 6,964 0.64 0.05 — 6,994 Water — — — — — — — — — — 235 798 1,034 24.2 0.58 — 1,812 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 271 0.00 271 27.1 0.00 — 949
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 714 714
Total 25.9 27.9 117 0.38 0.59 26.0 26.6 0.57 6.67 7.24 507 45,672 46,179 53.7 3.76 766 49,408 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.97 4.55 17.9 0.07 0.06 4.74 4.81 0.06 1.22 1.28 — 6,265 6,265 0.29 0.52 8.66 6,436 Area 2.72 0.03 2.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2 Energy 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,153 1,153 0.11 0.01 — 1,158 Water — — — — — — — — — — 39.0 132 171 4.01 0.10 — 300
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 44.9 0.00 44.9 4.49 0.00 — 157 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
12 / 57
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 118 118
Total 4.73 5.09 21.3 0.07 0.11 4.74 4.85 0.10 1.22 1.32 83.9 7,562 7,645 8.89 0.62 127 8,180

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

2.85 26.4 23.2 0.04 1.12 — 1.12 1.03 — 1.03 — 4,090 4,090 0.17 0.03 — 4,104 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 3.65 3.65 — 0.55 0.55 — — — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.85 26.4 23.2 0.04 1.12 — 1.12 1.03 — 1.03 — 4,090 4,090 0.17 0.03 — 4,104 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 3.65 3.65 — 0.55 0.55 — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.59 5.43 4.78 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 840 840 0.03 0.01 — 843 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
13 / 57
———————0.110.11—0.750.75—————Demolitio
n
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.99 0.87 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 139 139 0.01 < 0.005 — 140 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 247 247 0.01 0.01 0.97 251 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.10 5.86 2.25 0.03 0.06 20.8 20.8 0.06 2.29 2.34 — 4,681 4,681 0.25 0.75 10.8 4,922 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.10 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 234 234 0.01 0.01 0.03 237 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.10 6.08 2.25 0.03 0.06 20.8 20.8 0.06 2.29 2.34 — 4,683 4,683 0.25 0.75 0.28 4,914 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.8 48.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 49.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 1.27 0.46 0.01 0.01 4.18 4.19 0.01 0.46 0.47 — 962 962 0.05 0.15 0.95 1,010 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.09 8.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.20 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
14 / 57
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.23 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 0.08 0.09 — 159 159 0.01 0.03 0.16 167

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

3.75 35.8 31.7 0.07 1.50 — 1.50 1.38 — 1.38 — 7,263 7,263 0.29 0.06 — 7,288 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.62 3.62 — 1.43 1.43 — — — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.41 3.93 3.47 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 796 796 0.03 0.01 — 799 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.40 0.40 — 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
15 / 57
132—< 0.0050.01132132—0.03—0.030.03—0.03< 0.0050.630.720.07Off-Road Equipment
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.11 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 318 318 0.01 0.01 1.25 322 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.36 20.7 7.96 0.11 0.21 73.3 73.5 0.21 8.07 8.27 — 16,524 16,524 0.89 2.65 38.0 17,374 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 33.5 33.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 33.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 2.39 0.86 0.01 0.02 7.87 7.89 0.02 0.87 0.89 — 1,811 1,811 0.10 0.29 1.80 1,902 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.54 5.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.44 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.44 1.44 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 — 300 300 0.02 0.05 0.30 315

3.5. Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
16 / 57
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.49 14.5 14.3 0.02 0.63 — 0.63 0.58 — 0.58 — 2,242 2,242 0.09 0.02 — 2,250 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.56 2.56 — 1.31 1.31 — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 1.47 1.45 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 227 227 0.01 < 0.005 — 228 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.26 0.26 — 0.13 0.13 — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.27 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 37.6 37.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
17 / 57
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 167 167 0.01 0.01 0.02 169 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.28 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 219 219 0.01 0.04 0.01 230 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.2 22.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 23.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.85 2.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.68 3.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.86

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

1.43 12.8 14.6 0.03 0.55 — 0.55 0.51 — 0.51 — 3,063 3,063 0.12 0.02 — 3,073 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 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
18 / 57
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.43 12.8 14.6 0.03 0.55 — 0.55 0.51 — 0.51 — 3,063 3,063 0.12 0.02 — 3,073 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.47 4.15 4.75 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.17 — 0.17 — 995 995 0.04 0.01 — 998 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.76 0.87 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 165 165 0.01 < 0.005 — 165 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.02 1.09 17.2 0.00 0.00 2.98 2.98 0.00 0.70 0.70 — 3,222 3,222 0.13 0.11 12.7 3,270 Vendor 0.09 3.41 1.67 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.81 0.04 0.21 0.25 — 2,898 2,898 0.12 0.40 7.86 3,028 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.01 1.29 14.5 0.00 0.00 2.98 2.98 0.00 0.70 0.70 — 3,053 3,053 0.14 0.11 0.33 3,091 Vendor 0.09 3.55 1.71 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.81 0.04 0.21 0.25 — 2,899 2,899 0.12 0.40 0.20 3,021 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
19 / 57
Worker 0.33 0.42 4.97 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 1,007 1,007 0.04 0.04 1.78 1,021 Vendor 0.03 1.17 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 942 942 0.04 0.13 1.10 982 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.08 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 167 167 0.01 0.01 0.29 169 Vendor 0.01 0.21 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 156 156 0.01 0.02 0.18 163 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

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

1.35 11.8 14.5 0.03 0.48 — 0.48 0.44 — 0.44 — 3,064 3,064 0.12 0.02 — 3,074 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.24 2.08 2.56 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 540 540 0.02 < 0.005 — 541 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.38 0.47 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 89.3 89.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 89.6 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
20 / 57
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.97 1.10 13.5 0.00 0.00 2.98 2.98 0.00 0.70 0.70 — 2,990 2,990 0.14 0.11 0.30 3,028 Vendor 0.08 3.38 1.60 0.02 0.04 0.77 0.81 0.02 0.21 0.23 — 2,851 2,851 0.12 0.40 0.20 2,973 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.21 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 535 535 0.02 0.02 0.88 542 Vendor 0.01 0.60 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 502 502 0.02 0.07 0.60 524 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 88.5 88.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 89.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 83.1 83.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 86.8 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

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
21 / 57
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 2.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 197 197 0.01 0.01 0.02 199 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.11 9.30 3.52 0.05 0.09 1.95 2.05 0.09 0.53 0.63 — 7,298 7,298 0.40 1.14 0.44 7,649 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
22 / 57
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.52 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 — 400 400 0.02 0.06 0.40 419 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.81 1.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.83 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 66.2 66.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 69.4

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

59.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.11 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.5 16.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.5 Architectu
ral
Coatings

7.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
23 / 57
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.73 Architectu
ral
Coatings

1.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.22 2.69 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 598 598 0.03 0.02 0.06 606 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 74.8 74.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 75.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Off-Site Street Utilities (2024) - Unmitigated
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
24 / 57
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.44 4.09 5.86 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 864 864 0.04 0.01 — 867 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.44 4.09 5.86 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 864 864 0.04 0.01 — 867 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.12 1.60 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 237 237 0.01 < 0.005 — 238 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.20 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 39.2 39.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.3 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.05 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 0.56 143 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
25 / 57
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 135 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.02 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 37.2 37.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 37.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.16 6.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.24 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
26 / 57
24,45781.40.921.1124,07224,072—5.665.520.1421.921.70.150.2497.98.4210.7General Office
Building
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.05 3.52 1.29 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.96 0.04 0.24 0.29 — 3,269 3,269 0.15 0.51 7.64 3,432 Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.24 11.3 4.57 0.10 0.15 3.49 3.64 0.15 0.94 1.08 — 11,238 11,238 0.43 1.64 32.2 11,770 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 11.0 23.2 104 0.37 0.35 26.1 26.5 0.33 6.70 7.03 — 38,578 38,578 1.69 3.08 121 39,659 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

10.6 9.22 89.7 0.23 0.15 21.7 21.9 0.14 5.52 5.66 — 23,064 23,064 1.15 0.97 2.11 23,385 Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.05 3.65 1.30 0.03 0.05 0.91 0.96 0.04 0.24 0.29 — 3,269 3,269 0.15 0.51 0.20 3,425 Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.24 11.7 4.58 0.10 0.15 3.49 3.64 0.15 0.94 1.08 — 11,239 11,239 0.43 1.65 0.84 11,741 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 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
27 / 57
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 10.9 24.6 95.6 0.36 0.35 26.1 26.5 0.33 6.70 7.03 — 37,573 37,573 1.74 3.13 3.14 38,551 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

1.92 1.70 16.8 0.04 0.03 3.94 3.97 0.03 1.00 1.03 — 3,863 3,863 0.19 0.16 5.82 3,922 Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.01 0.68 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 541 541 0.02 0.08 0.55 567 Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.04 2.17 0.83 0.02 0.03 0.63 0.66 0.03 0.17 0.20 — 1,861 1,861 0.07 0.27 2.30 1,946 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 1.97 4.55 17.9 0.07 0.06 4.74 4.81 0.06 1.22 1.28 — 6,265 6,265 0.29 0.52 8.66 6,436

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
28 / 57
340—< 0.0050.03338338———————————General
Office
Building
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 491 491 0.05 0.01 — 494
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 2,170 2,170 0.21 0.03 — 2,183
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 567 567 0.05 0.01 — 570
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3,566 3,566 0.34 0.04 — 3,587 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 338 338 0.03 < 0.005 — 340
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 491 491 0.05 0.01 — 494
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 2,170 2,170 0.21 0.03 — 2,183
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 567 567 0.05 0.01 — 570
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
29 / 57
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3,566 3,566 0.34 0.04 — 3,587 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 56.0 56.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 56.3
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 81.3 81.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 81.8
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 359 359 0.03 < 0.005 — 361
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 93.8 93.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 94.4
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 590 590 0.06 0.01 — 594

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.01 0.14 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
30 / 57
Refrigerat
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.01 0.18 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 215 215 0.02 < 0.005 — 216 Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.14 2.53 2.13 0.02 0.19 — 0.19 0.19 — 0.19 — 3,020 3,020 0.27 0.01 — 3,029 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 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 0.16 2.85 2.39 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,398 3,398 0.30 0.01 — 3,407 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.01 0.14 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.01 0.18 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 215 215 0.02 < 0.005 — 216 Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.14 2.53 2.13 0.02 0.19 — 0.19 0.19 — 0.19 — 3,020 3,020 0.27 0.01 — 3,029 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 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 0.16 2.85 2.39 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,398 3,398 0.30 0.01 — 3,407 Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
31 / 57
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 35.6 35.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.7 Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.03 0.46 0.39 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 500 500 0.04 < 0.005 — 501 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 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 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 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 563 563 0.05 < 0.005 — 564

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

11.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.73 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
32 / 57
Landscap
Equipment

3.91 0.20 23.8 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 98.0 98.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.4 Total 16.2 0.20 23.8 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 98.0 98.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

11.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.73 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 12.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

2.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.49 0.03 2.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2 Total 2.72 0.03 2.98 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
33 / 57
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 6.81 23.0 29.8 0.70 0.02 — 52.3
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 11.9 40.0 51.9 1.22 0.03 — 91.1
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 217 735 952 22.3 0.54 — 1,669
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 235 798 1,034 24.2 0.58 — 1,812 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 6.81 23.0 29.8 0.70 0.02 — 52.3
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 11.9 40.0 51.9 1.22 0.03 — 91.1
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 217 735 952 22.3 0.54 — 1,669
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
34 / 57
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 235 798 1,034 24.2 0.58 — 1,812 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.13 3.80 4.93 0.12 < 0.005 — 8.66
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 1.97 6.62 8.59 0.20 < 0.005 — 15.1
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 35.9 122 158 3.69 0.09 — 276
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 39.0 132 171 4.01 0.10 — 300

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
35 / 57
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 10.0 0.00 10.0 1.00 0.00 — 35.1
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 13.6 0.00 13.6 1.36 0.00 — 47.5
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 248 0.00 248 24.8 0.00 — 867
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 271 0.00 271 27.1 0.00 — 949
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 10.0 0.00 10.0 1.00 0.00 — 35.1
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 13.6 0.00 13.6 1.36 0.00 — 47.5
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 248 0.00 248 24.8 0.00 — 867
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
36 / 57
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 271 0.00 271 27.1 0.00 — 949
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.66 0.00 1.66 0.17 0.00 — 5.81
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 2.25 0.00 2.25 0.22 0.00 — 7.86
Unrefriger
ated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 41.0 0.00 41.0 4.10 0.00 — 143
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.9 0.00 44.9 4.49 0.00 — 157

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
37 / 57
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 714 714
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 714 714
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 714 714
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 714 714
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Refrigerat
ed
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 118 118
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 118 118
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
38 / 57

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
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) Equipme
nt
Type
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
39 / 57
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
40 / 57
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E 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 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
41 / 57
Sequeste — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
42 / 57

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition/Site Preparation Demolition 2/9/2024 5/23/2024 5.00 75.0 — Grading/Underground
Utilities
Grading 5/24/2024 7/18/2024 5.00 40.0 —
Off-Site Driveways &
Sidewalks
Grading 10/23/2024 12/12/2024 5.00 37.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/19/2024 3/31/2025 5.00 182 — Paving Paving 2/7/2025 3/6/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/28/2025 3/31/2025 5.00 45.0 — Off-Site Street Utilities Trenching 6/3/2024 10/18/2024 5.00 100 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition/Site
Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40
Demolition/Site
Preparation
Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Demolition/Site
Preparation
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition/Site
Preparation
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 376 0.38
Grading/Underground
Utilities
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading/Underground
Utilities
Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading/Underground
Utilities
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
43 / 57
Grading/Underground
Utilities
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading/Underground
Utilities
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Grading/Underground
Utilities
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 376 0.38
Off-Site Driveways &
Sidewalks
Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Off-Site Driveways &
Sidewalks
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Off-Site Driveways &
Sidewalks
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 376 0.38 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Off-Site Street Utilities Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Off-Site Street Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
44 / 57
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition/Site Preparation — — — —
Demolition/Site Preparation Worker 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition/Site Preparation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition/Site Preparation Hauling 66.4 20.0 HHDT
Demolition/Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading/Underground Utilities — — — —
Grading/Underground Utilities Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading/Underground Utilities Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading/Underground Utilities Hauling 234 20.0 HHDT
Grading/Underground Utilities Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 228 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 89.8 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 105 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 45.6 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks — — — —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
45 / 57
Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Hauling 3.11 20.0 HHDT
Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks Onsite truck — — HHDT
Off-Site Street Utilities — — — —
Off-Site Street Utilities Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Off-Site Street Utilities Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Off-Site Street Utilities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Off-Site Street Utilities Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 803,528 267,843 40,926

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
46 / 57
Demolition/Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 0.00 433,000 —
Grading/Underground Utilities — 75,000 120 0.00 —
Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks 460 460 18.5 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.9

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
General Office Building 0.00 0%
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 15.7 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.28 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
47 / 57

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear General Office
Building
3,211 3,211 3,211 1,172,015 30,638 30,638 30,638 11,182,822 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

24.9 24.9 24.9 9,092 996 996 996 363,687
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

97.8 97.8 97.8 35,690 3,911 3,911 3,911 1,427,588
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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 0.00 803,528 267,843 40,926

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
48 / 57

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) General Office Building 356,406 346 0.0330 0.0040 506,929 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 517,970 346 0.0330 0.0040 671,073 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
2,288,229 346 0.0330 0.0040 9,424,108
Parking Lot 597,513 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Office Building 3,554,675 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 6,194,031 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 113,058,125 1,085,952
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Office Building 18.6 —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
49 / 57
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 25.2 —
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 460 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage R-404A 3,922 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 Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
50 / 57

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 10.4 annual days of extreme heat Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
51 / 57
Extreme Precipitation 4.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 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 (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth 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 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

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 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
52 / 57
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
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 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 47.0
AQ-PM 87.9
AQ-DPM 86.1
Drinking Water 53.1
Lead Risk Housing 70.1
Pesticides 53.1
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
53 / 57
Toxic Releases 91.9
Traffic 66.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 61.4
Groundwater 86.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 88.5
Impaired Water Bodies 33.2
Solid Waste 78.1
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 30.8
Cardio-vascular 58.9
Low Birth Weights 76.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 69.6
Housing 69.9
Linguistic 63.3
Poverty 70.7
Unemployment 33.6

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 22.78968305
Employed 58.03926601
Median HI 26.26716284
Education —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
54 / 57
Bachelor's or higher 12.6780444
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 43.42358527
Transportation —
Auto Access 41.51161299
Active commuting 71.37174387
Social —
2-parent households 12.72937251
Voting 39.6894649
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 47.50417041
Park access 34.26151675
Retail density 39.97176954
Supermarket access 30.12960349
Tree canopy 33.78673168
Housing —
Homeownership 2.887206467
Housing habitability 7.76337739
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 49.89092776 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 33.87655588
Uncrowded housing 10.70191197
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 16.52765302
Arthritis 90.5
Asthma ER Admissions 69.9
High Blood Pressure 92.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 94.8
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
55 / 57
Asthma 34.7
Coronary Heart Disease 81.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 59.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 44.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 64.6
Cognitively Disabled 58.3
Physically Disabled 69.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 74.7
Mental Health Not Good 17.8
Chronic Kidney Disease 64.9
Obesity 16.6
Pedestrian Injuries 87.4
Physical Health Not Good 25.2
Stroke 70.4
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 35.4
Current Smoker 19.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 24.7
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 10.0
Elderly 88.2
English Speaking 26.3
Foreign-born 74.9
Outdoor Workers 38.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
56 / 57
Impervious Surface Cover 2.5
Traffic Density 56.6
Traffic Access 67.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 81.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 11.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 89.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 26.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Downey Prologis Project R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
57 / 57
Land Use Building and lot areas per Site Plan and project description. Unrefrigerated warehouse SF includes 25 KSF of mezzanine space.

Parking lot = all other impervious spaces (parking, loading dock areas, driveways, sidewalks).

Other Asphalt Surfaces = Off-site street improvements per project Street Improvements plan.

Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule per project applicant.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Off-Highway truck = water truck used for dust control up to 4 hours per day, other off-road equipment per defaults.

Construction: Trips and VMT Estimated 1,053 loads (2,106 one-way trips) of aggregate/asphalt/concrete imported during paving.

Construction: Architectural Coatings Building envelope and flat coating VOC limit 50 g/l per SCAQMD Rule 1113.

Operations: Vehicle Data Trip generation per traffic study.

Refrigerated warehouse truck% per SCAQMD High Cube Study.

All passenger car trips assigned to the office land use.

All truck trips assigned to the warehouse land uses, 40 miles per SCAQMD.

Operations: Fleet Mix Refrigerated warehouse truck fleet mix from SCAQMD High Cube Study.

Unrefrigerated warehouse truck fleet mix from traffic study.

Operations: Architectural Coatings Building envelope and flat coating VOC limit 50 g/l per SCAQMD Rule 1113.

Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust 0.2 miles of each haul trip for demolition and grading assumed to be on unpaved on-site access roads.

Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
1 / 30
Downey Prologis Existing R2 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
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
2 / 30

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 Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
3 / 30

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
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
4 / 30

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
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
5 / 30

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
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
6 / 30

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Downey Prologis Existing R2
Operational Y ear 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.30
Precipitation (days) 8.00
Location 33.92906578780298, -118.1193666234409
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Downey
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4855
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.19

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
General Office
Building

16.0 1000sqft 0.37 16,000 9,000 — — —
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
7 / 30
Industrial Park 417 1000sqft 9.57 417,000 0.00 — — —

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. 10.3 18.2 33.3 74.0 0.32 0.60 15.5 16.1 0.57 4.04 4.61 477 44,211 44,688 50.7 4.20 205 47,411 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.89 15.0 34.5 52.1 0.32 0.56 15.5 16.1 0.55 4.04 4.59 477 43,741 44,218 50.7 4.22 111 46,855 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.18 17.1 34.8 65.9 0.32 0.59 15.5 16.0 0.56 4.02 4.58 477 43,896 44,373 50.7 4.22 150 47,049 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.67 3.12 6.36 12.0 0.06 0.11 2.82 2.93 0.10 0.73 0.84 79.0 7,267 7,346 8.39 0.70 24.8 7,790

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 Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
8 / 30
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 6.66 5.11 30.1 52.7 0.31 0.34 15.5 15.9 0.32 4.04 4.36 — 32,656 32,656 1.45 3.64 96.0 33,872 Area 3.35 12.9 0.16 18.8 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 77.4 77.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 77.7 Energy 0.32 0.16 2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 10,836 10,836 1.01 0.09 — 10,888 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 190 642 832 19.6 0.47 — 1,461 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 287 0.00 287 28.7 0.00 — 1,003 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 109 109
Total 10.3 18.2 33.3 74.0 0.32 0.60 15.5 16.1 0.57 4.04 4.61 477 44,211 44,688 50.7 4.20 205 47,411 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.57 5.02 31.6 49.6 0.30 0.34 15.5 15.9 0.32 4.04 4.36 — 32,264 32,264 1.47 3.66 2.49 33,394 Area — 9.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.32 0.16 2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 10,836 10,836 1.01 0.09 — 10,888 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 190 642 832 19.6 0.47 — 1,461 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 287 0.00 287 28.7 0.00 — 1,003 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 109 109
Total 6.89 15.0 34.5 52.1 0.32 0.56 15.5 16.1 0.55 4.04 4.59 477 43,741 44,218 50.7 4.22 111 46,855 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.56 5.01 31.8 50.5 0.30 0.34 15.5 15.8 0.32 4.02 4.34 — 32,365 32,365 1.47 3.66 41.5 33,534 Area 2.29 11.9 0.11 12.9 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 53.0 53.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.2 Energy 0.32 0.16 2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 10,836 10,836 1.01 0.09 — 10,888 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 190 642 832 19.6 0.47 — 1,461 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 287 0.00 287 28.7 0.00 — 1,003 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 109 109
Total 9.18 17.1 34.8 65.9 0.32 0.59 15.5 16.0 0.56 4.02 4.58 477 43,896 44,373 50.7 4.22 150 47,049 Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
9 / 30
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.20 0.91 5.80 9.21 0.06 0.06 2.82 2.88 0.06 0.73 0.79 — 5,358 5,358 0.24 0.61 6.86 5,552 Area 0.42 2.18 0.02 2.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.78 8.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.81 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.54 0.45 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,794 1,794 0.17 0.02 — 1,803 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 31.5 106 138 3.24 0.08 — 242 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 47.5 0.00 47.5 4.74 0.00 — 166 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.0 18.0
Total 1.67 3.12 6.36 12.0 0.06 0.11 2.82 2.93 0.10 0.73 0.84 79.0 7,267 7,346 8.39 0.70 24.8 7,790

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

4.78 4.32 3.39 39.4 0.09 0.06 8.74 8.80 0.06 2.22 2.27 — 9,679 9,679 0.45 0.37 32.7 9,833 Industrial
Park

1.87 0.79 26.8 13.3 0.21 0.28 6.79 7.07 0.27 1.82 2.09 — 22,977 22,977 1.01 3.27 63.3 24,039 Total 6.66 5.11 30.1 52.7 0.31 0.34 15.5 15.9 0.32 4.04 4.36 — 32,656 32,656 1.45 3.64 96.0 33,872 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
10 / 30
9,4020.850.390.469,2739,273—2.272.220.068.808.740.060.0936.13.714.264.73General Office
Building
Industrial
Park

1.83 0.76 27.9 13.6 0.21 0.28 6.79 7.07 0.27 1.82 2.09 — 22,990 22,990 1.01 3.27 1.64 23,992 Total 6.57 5.02 31.6 49.6 0.30 0.34 15.5 15.9 0.32 4.04 4.36 — 32,264 32,264 1.47 3.66 2.49 33,394 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.86 0.77 0.68 6.76 0.02 0.01 1.59 1.60 0.01 0.40 0.41 — 1,553 1,553 0.08 0.06 2.34 1,577 Industrial
Park

0.34 0.14 5.12 2.45 0.04 0.05 1.23 1.29 0.05 0.33 0.38 — 3,805 3,805 0.17 0.54 4.53 3,975 Total 1.20 0.91 5.80 9.21 0.06 0.06 2.82 2.88 0.06 0.73 0.79 — 5,358 5,358 0.24 0.61 6.86 5,552

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 270 270 0.03 < 0.005 — 272
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7,048 7,048 0.67 0.08 — 7,089
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 7,319 7,319 0.70 0.08 — 7,361 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
11 / 30
272—< 0.0050.03270270————————————General
Office
Building
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7,048 7,048 0.67 0.08 — 7,089
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 7,319 7,319 0.70 0.08 — 7,361 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 44.8 44.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.0 Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,167 1,167 0.11 0.01 — 1,174
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,212 1,212 0.12 0.01 — 1,219

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 130 130 0.01 < 0.005 — 130 Industrial
Park

0.31 0.16 2.84 2.38 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,387 3,387 0.30 0.01 — 3,397 Total 0.32 0.16 2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,517 3,517 0.31 0.01 — 3,527 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 130 130 0.01 < 0.005 — 130 Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
12 / 30
Industrial
Park

0.31 0.16 2.84 2.38 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,387 3,387 0.30 0.01 — 3,397 Total 0.32 0.16 2.95 2.48 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,517 3,517 0.31 0.01 — 3,527 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.6 Industrial
Park

0.06 0.03 0.52 0.44 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 561 561 0.05 < 0.005 — 562 Total 0.06 0.03 0.54 0.45 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 582 582 0.05 < 0.005 — 584

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
— 9.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.55 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

3.35 3.09 0.16 18.8 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 77.4 77.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 77.7 Total 3.35 12.9 0.16 18.8 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 77.4 77.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 77.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
13 / 30
Consum
Products
— 9.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.55 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 9.82 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.42 0.39 0.02 2.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.78 8.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.81 Total 0.42 2.18 0.02 2.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.78 8.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.81

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.45 19.0 24.4 0.56 0.01 — 42.5
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 185 623 807 19.0 0.46 — 1,419
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
14 / 30
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 190 642 832 19.6 0.47 — 1,461 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.45 19.0 24.4 0.56 0.01 — 42.5
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 185 623 807 19.0 0.46 — 1,419
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 190 642 832 19.6 0.47 — 1,461 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.90 3.15 4.05 0.09 < 0.005 — 7.03 Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 30.6 103 134 3.15 0.08 — 235
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 31.5 106 138 3.24 0.08 — 242

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.02 0.00 8.02 0.80 0.00 — 28.1
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 279 0.00 279 27.9 0.00 — 975
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 287 0.00 287 28.7 0.00 — 1,003 Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
15 / 30
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.02 0.00 8.02 0.80 0.00 — 28.1
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 279 0.00 279 27.9 0.00 — 975
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 287 0.00 287 28.7 0.00 — 1,003 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.33 0.00 1.33 0.13 0.00 — 4.65
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 46.1 0.00 46.1 4.61 0.00 — 161
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 47.5 0.00 47.5 4.74 0.00 — 166

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 109 109
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 109 109
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
16 / 30
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 109 109
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 109 109
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Industrial
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.0 18.0
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.0 18.0

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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
17 / 30
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
18 / 30
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) 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
19 / 30
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
20 / 30
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear General Office
Building
1,291 1,291 1,291 471,230 12,319 12,319 12,319 4,496,254 Industrial Park 817 817 817 298,322 7,798 7,798 7,798 2,846,448

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
21 / 30

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Office Building 2,843,740 126,221
Industrial Park 96,431,250 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
22 / 30

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Office Building 14.9 —
Industrial Park 517 —

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 General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Industrial Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0

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 Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
23 / 30
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

Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
24 / 30
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 10.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 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.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 0 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 0 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 0 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.

Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
25 / 30
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 1 1 1 2
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 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 47.0
AQ-PM 87.9
AQ-DPM 86.1
Drinking Water 53.1
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
26 / 30
Lead Risk Housing 70.1
Pesticides 53.1
Toxic Releases 91.9
Traffic 66.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 61.4
Groundwater 86.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 88.5
Impaired Water Bodies 33.2
Solid Waste 78.1
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 30.8
Cardio-vascular 58.9
Low Birth Weights 76.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 69.6
Housing 69.9
Linguistic 63.3
Poverty 70.7
Unemployment 33.6

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 22.78968305
Employed 58.03926601
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
27 / 30
Median HI 26.26716284
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 12.6780444
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 43.42358527
Transportation —
Auto Access 41.51161299
Active commuting 71.37174387
Social —
2-parent households 12.72937251
Voting 39.6894649
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 47.50417041
Park access 34.26151675
Retail density 39.97176954
Supermarket access 30.12960349
Tree canopy 33.78673168
Housing —
Homeownership 2.887206467
Housing habitability 7.76337739
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 49.89092776 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 33.87655588
Uncrowded housing 10.70191197
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 16.52765302
Arthritis 90.5
Asthma ER Admissions 69.9
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
28 / 30
High Blood Pressure 92.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 94.8
Asthma 34.7
Coronary Heart Disease 81.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 59.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 44.3
Life Expectancy at Birth 64.6
Cognitively Disabled 58.3
Physically Disabled 69.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 74.7
Mental Health Not Good 17.8
Chronic Kidney Disease 64.9
Obesity 16.6
Pedestrian Injuries 87.4
Physical Health Not Good 25.2
Stroke 70.4
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 35.4
Current Smoker 19.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 24.7
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 10.0
Elderly 88.2
English Speaking 26.3
Foreign-born 74.9
Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
29 / 30
Outdoor Workers 38.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 2.5
Traffic Density 56.6
Traffic Access 67.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 81.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 11.1

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.

Downey Prologis Existing R2 Detailed Report, 9/19/2023
30 / 30

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Vehicle Data Trips generation per traffic study, passenger car trips assigned to office land use and truck trips assigned to industrial land use.

Operations: Fleet Mix Truck trip fleet mix per traffic study.

Operations: Architectural Coatings Building envelope and flat coating VOC limit 50 g/l per SCAQMD Rule 1113.

Appendix B
HRA Modeling
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Construction Period 1 HRA DPM Calculations On-Site DPM Emissions (AERMOD Source = CONST)
Source Workdays Year
Speed
(mph)
Distance
(miles)
Emissions Factor
(g/mile)
Peak Loads
per Hour Total Loads Max Daily (lbs)
Max Hour
(lbs)
Annual
(lbs)
Equipment Demolition/Site Preparation 75 2024 - - - - - 1.116 0.12400 83.72000 Equipment Grading/Underground Utilities 40 2024 - - - - - 1.504 0.16711 60.15000 Haul Truck Idling 2024 5 0.415 1.561E-02 13 11,865 - 0.08424 76.88592 Source Input 0.25135 220.75592
Hall Road Haul Route DPM Emissions (AERMOD Source = HALL1) Source Workdays Year
Speed
(mph)
Distance
(miles)
Emissions Factor
(g/mile)
Peak Trips per
Hour Total Trips Max Hour (lbs) Annual (lbs)
Haul Trucks Demolition/Site Preparation 2024 35 0.489 0.008812614 4 2490 0.01724 10.73033 Haul Trucks Grading/Underground Utilities 2024 35 0.489 0.008812614 13 4688 0.05602 20.20232 Source Input 0.056 30.933
Stewart and Gray Road Haul Route DPM Emissions (AERMOD Source = SAGR1) Source Workdays Year
Speed
(mph)
Distance
(miles)
Emissions Factor
(g/mile)
Peak Trips per
Hour Total Trips Max Hour (lbs) Annual (lbs)
Haul Trucks Demolition/Site Preparation 75 2024 40 0.332 0.010872793 4 2490 0.01444 8.98832 Haul Trucks Grading/Underground Utilities 40 2024 40 0.332 0.010872793 13 4688 0.04693 16.92259 Source Input 0.047 25.911
Notes:1. Off-road equipment PM10 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod construction modeling.2. Truck exhaust PM10 emissions factor reported by EMFAC2021 in grams/mile.3. 1 gram = 0.0022046 pounds.4. Idling emissions calculated assuming idling emissions are approximately equal to 5 mph emissions.

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Construction Period 2 HRA DPM Calculations On-Site DPM Emissions (AERMOD Source = CONST)
Source Workdays Year
Speed
(mph)
Distance
(miles)
Emissions Factor
(g/mile)
Peak Loads
per Hour Total Loads Max Daily (lbs)
Max Hour
(lbs)
Annual
(lbs)
Equipment Building Construction 40 2024 - - - - - 0.554 0.06156 65.64000 Equipment Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks 75 2024 - - - - - 0.626 0.06956 23.17000 Equipment Off-Site Street Utilities 2024 - - - - - 0.164 0.01822 16.40000 Equipment Building Construction 2025 - - - - - 0.442 0.04911 30.88000 Equipment Paving 2025 - - - - - 0.321 0.03567 6.97200
Equipment Architectural Coating 2025 - - - - - 0.025 0.00278 1.23400 Haul Truck Idling 2024 5 0.415 1.561E-02 6 1,111 - 0.03888 7.19935 Source Input 0.07455 151.49535
Hall Road Haul Route DPM Emissions (AERMOD Source = HALL1) Source Workdays Year
Speed
(mph)
Distance
(miles)
Emissions Factor
(g/mile)
Peak Trips per
Hour Total Trips Max Hour (lbs) Annual (lbs)
Haul Trucks Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks 37 2024 35 0.489 0.008812614 1 58 0.00431 0.24994 Haul Trucks Paving 20 2025 35 0.489 0.008497654 6 1053 0.02493 4.37559 Source Input 0.025 4.626
Stewart and Gray Road Haul Route DPM Emissions (AERMOD Source = SAGR1) Source Workdays Year
Speed
(mph)
Distance
(miles)
Emissions Factor
(g/mile)
Peak Trips per
Hour Total Trips Max Hour (lbs) Annual (lbs)
Haul Trucks Off-Site Driveways & Sidewalks 37 2024 40 0.332 0.010872793 1 58 0.00361 0.20937 Haul Trucks Paving 20 2025 40 0.332 0.010551329 6 1053 0.02102 3.68870 Source Input 0.021 3.898
Notes:1. Off-road equipment PM10 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod construction modeling.2. Truck exhaust PM10 emissions factor reported by EMFAC2021 in grams/mile.3. 1 gram = 0.0022046 pounds.4. Idling emissions calculated assuming idling emissions are approximately equal to 5 mph emissions.

Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission Rates
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: Los Angeles (SC)
Calendar Year: 2024 2025
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, mph for Speed
Region Calendar YearVehicle CategoryModel Year Speed Fuel PM10_RUNEX Los Angeles (SC) 2024HHDT Aggregate 5 Diesel 0.015614605 Los Angeles (SC) 2024HHDT Aggregate 35Diesel 0.008812614 Los Angeles (SC) 2024HHDT Aggregate 40Diesel 0.010872793 Los Angeles (SC) 2025HHDT Aggregate 5 Diesel 0.015150385 Los Angeles (SC) 2025HHDT Aggregate 35Diesel 0.008497654 Los Angeles (SC) 2025HHDT Aggregate 40Diesel 0.010551329 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Operational HRA DPM Calculations Project Truck Trips Peak Hour ADT
2 Axle (LHDT2) 2 21
3 Axle (MHDT) 4 40
4 or more Axle (HHDT) 10 87
Total Trucks 16 148
Total TRUs 2 25
HALR1 - Hall Road Route 1Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 2.03393E-02 35 35% 650.0 0.4039 - 0.7 7.4 2682.81.2677E-054.8586E-02 3 Axle (MHDT) 6.86384E-03 35 35% 650.0 0.4039 - 1.4 14.0 51108.5564E-063.1231E-02 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 8.24491E-03 35 35% 650.0 0.4039 - 3.5 30.5 11114.252.5695E-058.1594E-02 TRU 5.25598E-10 35 35% 650.0 0.4039 0.0115 0.7 8.8 3193.754.2457E-124.2705E-11 Total 4.6929E-051.6141E-01
HALR2 - Hall Road Route 2Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 2.03393E-02 35 23% 142.4 0.0885 - 0.5 4.8 1763.01.8251E-066.9947E-03 3 Axle (MHDT) 6.86384E-03 35 23% 142.4 0.0885 - 0.9 9.2 33581.2318E-064.4961E-03 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 8.24491E-03 35 23% 142.4 0.0885 - 2.3 20.0 7303.653.6992E-061.1747E-02 TRU 5.25598E-10 35 23% 142.4 0.0885 0.0025 0.5 5.8 2098.756.1123E-132.7887E-09 Total 6.7561E-062.3238E-02
HALR3 - Hall Road Route 3Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 2.03393E-02 35 11% 205.7 0.1278 - 0.2 2.3 843.21.2609E-064.8323E-03 3 Axle (MHDT) 6.86384E-03 35 11% 205.7 0.1278 - 0.4 4.4 16068.5101E-073.1062E-03 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 8.24491E-03 35 11% 205.7 0.1278 - 1.1 9.6 3493.052.5556E-068.1153E-03 TRU 5.25598E-10 35 11% 205.7 0.1278 0.0037 0.2 2.8 1003.754.2227E-131.9266E-09 Total 4.6675E-061.6054E-02
SAGR1 - Stewart and Gray
Road Route 1 Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 1.74083E-02 40 50% 282.2 0.1754 - 1.0 10.5 3832.56.7297E-062.5791E-02 3 Axle (MHDT) 6.66998E-03 40 50% 282.2 0.1754 - 2.0 20.0 73005.1569E-061.8823E-02 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 1.03130E-02 40 50% 282.2 0.1754 - 5.0 43.5 15877.51.9934E-056.3300E-02 TRU 5.25598E-10 40 50% 282.2 0.1754 0.0044 1.0 12.5 4562.52.3041E-121.0512E-08 Total 3.1820E-051.0791E-01
SAGR2 - Stewart and Gray
Road Route 2 Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 1.74083E-02 40 60% 145.0 0.0901 - 1.2 12.6 4599.04.1494E-061.5903E-02 3 Axle (MHDT) 6.66998E-03 40 60% 145.0 0.0901 - 2.4 24.0 87603.1797E-061.1606E-02 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 1.03130E-02 40 60% 145.0 0.0901 - 6.0 52.2 190531.2291E-053.9030E-02 TRU 5.25598E-10 40 60% 145.0 0.0901 0.0023 1.2 15.0 54751.4207E-126.4818E-09 Total 1.9620E-056.6538E-02
SAGR3 - Stewart and Gray
Road Route 3 Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 1.74083E-02 40 30% 145.0 0.0901 - 0.6 6.3 2299.52.0747E-067.9513E-03 3 Axle (MHDT) 6.66998E-03 40 30% 145.0 0.0901 - 1.2 12.0 43801.5898E-065.8029E-03 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 1.03130E-02 40 30% 145.0 0.0901 - 3.0 26.1 9526.56.1454E-061.9515E-02 TRU 5.25598E-10 40 30% 145.0 0.0901 0.0023 0.6 7.5 2737.57.1034E-133.2409E-09 Total 9.8100E-063.3269E-02
SAGR4 - Stewart and Gray
Road Route 4 Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 1.74083E-02 40 5% 344.2 0.2139 - 0.1 1.1 383.38.2082E-073.1458E-03 3 Axle (MHDT) 6.66998E-03 40 5% 344.2 0.2139 - 0.2 2.0 730 6.2899E-072.2958E-03 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 1.03130E-02 40 5% 344.2 0.2139 - 0.5 4.4 1587.752.4313E-067.7207E-03 TRU 5.25598E-10 40 5% 344.2 0.2139 0.0053 0.1 1.3 456.252.8103E-131.2822E-09 Total 3.8811E-061.3162E-02
WDRR1 - Woodruff Ave
Route 1 Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 1.74083E-02 40 10% 306.4 0.1904 - 0.2 2.1 766.51.4614E-065.6006E-03 3 Axle (MHDT) 6.66998E-03 40 10% 306.4 0.1904 - 0.4 4.0 14601.1198E-064.0874E-03 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 1.03130E-02 40 10% 306.4 0.1904 - 1.0 8.7 3175.54.3287E-061.3746E-02 TRU 5.25598E-10 40 10% 306.4 0.1904 0.0048 0.2 2.5 912.55.0034E-132.2828E-09 Total 6.9098E-062.3434E-02
Notes:1. Truck exhaust PM10 emissions factor reported by EMFAC2021 in grams/mile.2. 1 gram = 0.0022046 pounds.3. TRU exhasut emissions reported by OFFROAD2021 in pounds/day.4. Idling emissions calculated assuming idling emissions are approximately equal to 5 mph HALDR1 - Hall Road
Driveway 1 Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 4.10644E-02 15 12% 261.5 0.1625 - 0.2 2.5 919.83.5304E-061.3530E-02 3 Axle (MHDT) 1.82006E-02 15 12% 261.5 0.1625 - 0.5 4.8 17523.1295E-061.1423E-02 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 9.67417E-03 15 12% 261.5 0.1625 - 1.2 10.4 3810.64.1586E-061.3206E-02 TRU 5.25598E-10 15 12% 261.5 0.1625 0.0108 0.2 3.0 10951.3665E-126.2345E-09 Total 1.0819E-053.8159E-02
HALDR2 - Hall Road
Driveway 2 Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 4.10644E-02 15 12% 132.2 0.0821 - 0.2 2.5 919.81.7848E-066.8402E-03 3 Axle (MHDT) 1.82006E-02 15 12% 132.2 0.0821 - 0.5 4.8 17521.5821E-065.7747E-03 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 9.67417E-03 15 12% 132.2 0.0821 - 1.2 10.4 3810.62.1024E-066.6760E-03 TRU 5.25598E-10 15 12% 132.2 0.0821 0.0055 0.2 3.0 10956.9081E-133.1518E-09 Total 5.4693E-061.9291E-02
HALDR3 - Hall Road
Driveway 3 Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 4.10644E-02 15 11% 213.2 0.1325 - 0.2 2.3 843.22.6385E-061.0112E-02 3 Axle (MHDT) 1.82006E-02 15 11% 213.2 0.1325 - 0.4 4.4 16062.3389E-068.5369E-03 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 9.67417E-03 15 11% 213.2 0.1325 - 1.1 9.6 3493.053.1080E-069.8693E-03 TRU 5.25598E-10 15 11% 213.2 0.1325 0.0088 0.2 2.8 1003.751.0212E-124.6594E-09 Total 8.0853E-062.8518E-02
SAGDR1 - Stewart and
Gray Road Driveway 1Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 4.10644E-02 15 30% 156.3 0.0971 - 0.6 6.3 2299.55.2754E-062.0218E-02 3 Axle (MHDT) 1.82006E-02 15 30% 156.3 0.0971 - 1.2 12.0 43804.6763E-061.7069E-02 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 9.67417E-03 15 30% 156.3 0.0971 - 3.0 26.1 9526.56.2140E-061.9733E-02 TRU 5.25598E-10 15 30% 156.3 0.0971 0.0065 0.6 7.5 2737.52.0418E-129.3159E-09 Total 1.6166E-055.7019E-02
SAGDR2 - Stewart and
Gray Road Driveway 2Emission Factor
Avg. Speed
(mph) % of Tripsmeters Miles
Time
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 4.10644E-02 15 35% 153.1 0.0951 - 0.7 7.4 2682.86.0286E-062.3105E-02 3 Axle (MHDT) 1.82006E-02 15 35% 153.1 0.0951 - 1.4 14.0 51105.3440E-061.9506E-02 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 9.67417E-03 15 35% 153.1 0.0951 - 3.5 30.5 11114.257.1013E-062.2550E-02 TRU 5.25598E-10 15 35% 153.1 0.0951 0.0063 0.7 8.8 3193.752.3334E-121.0646E-08 Total 1.8474E-056.5161E-02
DOCK# - Loading DocksEmission Factor % of Trips
Idle/Trip
(minutes)
TRU/Trip
(hours)
Peak Hour
Trips ADT
Annual
Trips
Max
lb./hour
Annual
lb./year
2 Axle (LHDT2) 5.90403E-02 10% 6 - 0.20 2.10 766.51.3016E-054.9882E-02 3 Axle (MHDT) 3.45949E-02 10% 6 - 0.40 4.00 14601.5253E-055.5673E-02 4 or more Axle (HHDT) 1.48690E-02 10% 6 - 1.00 8.70 3175.51.6389E-055.2045E-02 TRU 5.25598E-10 10% - 2 0.20 2.50 912.52.6280E-099.5922E-07 Total 4.4658E-051.5760E-01
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission Rates
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: Los Angeles (SC)
Calendar Year: 2026
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for VMT, g/mile for RUNEX, mph for Speed Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Total VMT PM10_RUNEX Los Angeles (SC) 2026 HHDT Aggregate 5 Diesel 473.273424 0.014868997 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate 5 Diesel 188.314465 0.059040296 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MHDT Aggregate 5 Diesel 1509.81051 0.034594873 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 HHDT Aggregate 15 Diesel 26745.4501 0.009674167 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate 15 Diesel 7679.30311 0.041064364 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MHDT Aggregate 15 Diesel 32811.4851 0.018200565 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 HHDT Aggregate 35 Diesel 452722.491 0.008244912 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate 35 Diesel 114832.481 0.020339267 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MHDT Aggregate 35 Diesel 276393.301 0.006863838 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 HHDT Aggregate 40 Diesel 420831.301 0.010312952 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate 40 Diesel 81542.8075 0.017408273 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MHDT Aggregate 40 Diesel 225643.953 0.006669981 Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.5) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: Los Angeles (SC)
Calendar Year: 2026
Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust
Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types
Units: tons/day for Emissions, hours/year for Activity
Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Horsepower Bin Fuel PM10_tpd Total_Activity_hpy Los Angeles (SC) 2026 Transportation Refridgeration Unit - Instate Genset Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 0.0018329 818011.94 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 Transportation Refridgeration Unit - Instate Trailer Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 0.0297192 12281205.42 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 Transportation Refridgeration Unit - Instate Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 0.0060508 1103850.54 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 Transportation Refridgeration Unit - Out-Of-State Genset Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 0.0017374 655633.38 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 Transportation Refridgeration Unit - Out-Of-State Trailer Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 0.0238627 7086872.33 Total 0.063203 21945573.61
lbs/hour 5.256E-10
Residential Cancer Risk
*HARP - HRACalc v22118 9/21/2023 6:38:56 AM - Cancer Risk REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO Const 1 Const 2 Ops Total 30 yr 730ALL R1 396359.33754638.8230YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to701.36E-06 1.07E-06 7.99E-08 2.51E-06 731ALL R2 396998.063754826.9630YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to702.42E-06 5.69E-07 1.70E-07 3.16E-06 732ALL R3 396832.123754939.4230YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to702.33E-06 1.19E-06 1.43E-07 3.66E-06 733ALL R4/MEIR 396806.313754968.9230YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to703.48E-06 1.67E-06 1.61E-07 5.31E-06 734ALL R5 396294.973755128.1130YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to707.71E-07 6.02E-07 6.53E-08 1.44E-06 735ALL R6 396292.443754939.6430YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to701.38E-06 1.10E-06 1.18E-07 2.59E-06 736ALL R7 396292.443754810.2430YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to701.48E-06 1.18E-06 1.18E-07 2.78E-06 737ALL R8 396290.913754727.5530YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to701.37E-06 1.08E-06 8.91E-08 2.54E-06 785ALL PMI 396614.213755019.3430YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to701.16E-05 8.94E-06 3.13E-07 2.08E-05 Residential Non-Cancer Chronic Risk
*HARP - HRACalc v22118 9/21/2023 6:56:48 AM - Chronic Risk REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO Const 1 Const 2 Ops Total 30 yr 730 ALL R1 396359.3 3754638.82 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh 0.003345 3.63E-05 3.38E-03 731 ALL R2 396998.06 3754826.96 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh 0.005953 7.71E-05 6.03E-03 732 ALL R3 396832.12 3754939.42 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh 0.00573 6.51E-05 5.80E-03 733 ALL R4/MEIR 396806.31 3754968.92 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh 0.008554 7.33E-05 8.63E-03 734 ALL R5 396294.97 3755128.11 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh 0.001894 2.96E-05 1.92E-03 735 ALL R6 396292.44 3754939.64 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh 0.003385 5.34E-05 3.44E-03 736 ALL R7 396292.44 3754810.24 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh 0.003649 5.35E-05 3.70E-03 737 ALL R8 396290.91 3754727.55 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh 0.003357 4.05E-05 3.40E-03 785 ALL PMI 396614.21 3755019.34 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh 0.0285 0.000142 2.86E-02

Off-Site Worker Cancer Risk
*HARP - HRACalc v22118 9/21/2023 6:55:43 AM - Cancer Risk REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO Const 1 Const 2 Ops Total 30 yr 738 ALL W1 396431.66 3754681.07 25YrCancerDerived_Inh 3.75E-08 3.43E-08 2.11E-08 9.29E-08 739 ALL W2 396647.4 3754685.12 25YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.46E-08 3.04E-08 2.96E-08 1.15E-07 740 ALL W3 396727.12 3754740.07 25YrCancerDerived_Inh 8.09E-08 5.72E-08 3.42E-08 1.72E-07 741 ALL W4 396726.22 3754914.82 25YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.34E-07 1.11E-07 3.6E-08 2.81E-07 742 ALL W5 396370.99 3755104.47 25YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.19E-08 4.90E-08 1.82E-08 1.19E-07 743 ALL W6 396369.64 3754929.71 25YrCancerDerived_Inh 7.34E-08 6.95E-08 5.09E-08 1.94E-07 744 ALL W7 396365.59 3754753.61 25YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.6E-08 5.27E-08 3.13E-08 1.40E-07 Off-Site Worker Non-Cancer Chronic Risk
*HARP - HRACalc v22118 9/21/2023 7:03:24 AM - Chronic Risk REC GRP NETID X Y SCENARIO Const 1 Const 2 Const 2 Total 30 yr 738 ALL W1 396431.66 3754681.07 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 5.81E-03 3.79E-03 9.60E-03 739 ALL W2 396647.4 3754685.12 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 8.46E-03 3.36E-03 1.18E-02 740 ALL W3 396727.12 3754740.07 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 1.25E-02 6.32E-03 1.89E-02 741 ALL W4 396726.22 3754914.82 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 2.07E-02 1.23E-02 3.30E-02 742 ALL W5 396370.99 3755104.47 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 8.04E-03 5.42E-03 1.35E-02 743 ALL W6 396369.64 3754929.71 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 1.14E-02 7.68E-03 1.90E-02 744 ALL W7 396365.59 3754753.61 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 8.68E-03 5.83E-03 1.45E-02

Control Pathway
AERMOD
Total Deposition (Dry & Wet)
Dry Deposition
Wet Deposition
Output Type
Concentration
Regulatory Default Non-Default Options
Dispersion Options
C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\Downey HRA\Downey Prologis Disp\Downey Prol Titles
Dispersion Options
Population:

Name (Optional):

Roughness Length:

Plume Depletion
Dry Removal
Wet Removal
Output Warnings
No Output Warnings
Non-fatal Warnings for Non-sequential Met Data
Dispersion Coefficient
Urban
Pollutant / Averaging Time / Terrain Options
TG: Meters
RE: Meters
SO: Meters1 2 3 4 6 8 12 24
ElevatedFlat
Hours Terrain Height Options
Averaging Time Options
Option not availableHalf Life of 4 hrs will be used
Exponential DecayPollutant Type
Annual
Month Period

OTHER - DPM
Flagpole Receptors
NoYes
Default Height = 1.20 m
9/21/2023CO - 1 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Control Pathway
AERMOD
Optional Files
Re-Start File Multi-Year Analyses Event Input File Error Listing File Init File
Detailed Error Listing File
Filename: Downey Prologis Disp Construction.err
9/21/2023CO - 2 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Polygon Area Sources
Source Type: AREA POLY
Source: CONST (On-Site Construciion)
X Coordinate
for Vertices
[m]
Y Coordinate
for Vertices
[m]
Base
Elevation
(Optional)
Emission
Rate
[g/ (s-m^2)]
Release
Height
[m]
Initial
Vertical
Dim. [m]
Number of
Vertices
(or sides)

32.80 3.00 4.00 8 396383.59 3754718.228.78E-6
396398.35 3754716.688.78E-6
396710.06 3754716.738.78E-6
396721.87 3754718.338.78E-6
396721.99 3754945.088.78E-6
396456.83 3755122.348.78E-6
396448.61 3755123.978.78E-6
396383.62 3755123.958.78E-6
Line Volume Sources
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: HALR1 (Hall Rd Route 1)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

24.29 1.00000 3.40 33.383755044.97396588.70

3.4033.543754918.20396784.94

3.4033.943755170.42396787.94

3.4034.133755015.28397046.67
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: SAGR1 (Stewart and Gray Rd Route 1)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

24.29 1.00000 0.00 32.883754700.71396536.39

0.0032.663754700.35396726.00

0.0032.633754724.48396796.79

0.0033.663754819.36397049.68
9/21/2023SO1 - 1 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Volume Sources Generated from Line Sources
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGR1 L0000380 396548.53 3754700.68 32.85 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000381 396572.82 3754700.64 32.81 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000382 396597.11 3754700.59 32.77 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000383 396621.40 3754700.55 32.76 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000384 396645.68 3754700.50 32.73 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000385 396669.97 3754700.46 32.70 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000386 396694.26 3754700.41 32.67 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000387 396718.55 3754700.36 32.65 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000388 396741.93 3754705.78 32.68 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000389 396764.92 3754713.62 32.59 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000390 396787.91 3754721.45 32.68 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000391 396810.75 3754729.72 32.55 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000392 396833.49 3754738.25 32.61 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000393 396856.23 3754746.78 32.72 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000394 396878.97 3754755.31 32.83 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000395 396901.71 3754763.85 32.90 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000396 396924.45 3754772.38 32.96 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000397 396947.19 3754780.91 33.08 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000398 396969.93 3754789.44 33.62 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000399 396992.67 3754797.97 34.10 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000400 397015.41 3754806.51 34.00 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 L0000401 397038.15 3754815.04 33.75 0.00 24.29 11.30 3.160.04545 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
9/21/2023SO1 - 2 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALR1 L0000402 396598.91 3755038.38 33.35 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000403 396619.31 3755025.20 33.34 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000404 396639.71 3755012.02 33.37 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000405 396660.11 3754998.84 33.34 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000406 396680.51 3754985.66 33.28 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000407 396700.91 3754972.48 33.25 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000408 396721.31 3754959.30 33.26 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000409 396741.71 3754946.12 33.23 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000410 396762.11 3754932.94 33.23 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000411 396782.51 3754919.76 33.42 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000412 396785.19 3754939.60 34.11 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000413 396785.48 3754963.89 33.63 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000414 396785.77 3754988.17 33.32 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000415 396786.06 3755012.46 33.34 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000416 396786.35 3755036.74 33.45 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000417 396786.64 3755061.03 33.54 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000418 396786.93 3755085.32 33.64 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000419 396787.22 3755109.60 33.72 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000420 396787.51 3755133.89 33.79 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000421 396787.79 3755158.18 33.84 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000422 396798.27 3755164.22 33.97 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000423 396819.10 3755151.73 34.01 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000424 396839.93 3755139.24 33.97 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000425 396860.76 3755126.75 34.04 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000426 396881.59 3755114.26 34.16 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 9/21/2023SO1 - 3 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALR1 L0000427 396902.42 3755101.77 34.11 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000428 396923.25 3755089.28 34.07 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000429 396944.08 3755076.79 34.07 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000430 396964.91 3755064.30 34.12 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000431 396985.74 3755051.81 34.16 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000432 397006.57 3755039.32 34.14 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 L0000433 397027.40 3755026.83 34.13 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03125 9/21/2023SO1 - 4 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Volume Sources
Initial
Vertical
Dim. [m]
Initial
Lateral
Dim. [m]
Building
Height
[m]
Length
of Side
[m]
Source
Type
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
(Optional)
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Release
Height
[m]
VOLUME 396420.00 3754930.00 33.95 3.60 25.00 5.81 0.93DOCK1 Surface-Based1.00000 VOLUME 396420.00 3754815.00 32.93 3.60 25.00 5.81 0.93DOCK2 Surface-Based1.00000 VOLUME 396630.00 3754930.00 33.21 3.60 25.00 5.81 0.93DOCK3 Surface-Based1.00000 VOLUME 396630.00 3754815.00 33.09 3.60 25.00 5.81 0.93DOCK4 Surface-Based1.00000 VOLUME 396515.00 3755020.00 33.12 3.60 23.94 5.57 0.93DOCK5 Surface-Based1.00000 9/21/2023SO1 - 1 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line Volume Sources
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: HALDR1 (Hall Rd Drive 1)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

8.60 1.00000 3.40 33.933755133.40396397.97

3.4033.123754871.91396398.31
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: HALDR2 (Hall Rd Drive 2)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

8.60 1.00000 3.40 33.453755050.06396579.66

3.4033.323755017.51396568.26

3.4033.383755017.92396470.60
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: HALDR3 (Hall Rd Drive 3)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

8.60 1.00000 3.40 33.343754969.49396702.55

3.4033.363754951.18396691.56

3.4033.473754986.18396637.85

3.4033.303754986.18396626.45

3.4033.113754869.80396626.86
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: HALR1 (Hall Rd Route 1)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

24.29 1.00000 3.40 33.333754969.74396703.87

3.4033.543754918.20396784.94

3.4033.943755170.42396787.94

3.4034.133755015.28397046.67
9/21/2023SO1 - 2 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: HALR2 (Hall Rd Route 2)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

18.19 1.00000 3.40 33.263754971.86396701.16

3.4033.373755049.44396581.69
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: HALR3 (Hall Rd Route 3)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

18.19 1.00000 3.40 33.463755053.20396578.42

3.4033.793755134.45396455.37

3.4033.943755134.97396397.12
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: SAGDR1 (Stewart and Gray Road Drive 1)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

8.60 1.00000 3.40 32.893754706.54396402.62

3.4033.203754862.81396402.30
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: SAGDR2 (Stewary and Gray Rd Drive 2)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

8.60 1.00000 3.40 32.773754705.32396643.54

3.4033.133754858.41396643.20
9/21/2023SO1 - 3 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: SAGR1 (Stewart and Gray Rd Route 1)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

24.29 1.00000 3.40 32.693754720.24396785.49

3.4033.663754819.36397049.68
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: SAGR2 (Stewart adn Gray Rd Route 2)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

24.29 1.00000 3.40 32.703754721.52396785.49

3.4032.663754700.24396726.78

3.4032.743754701.09396644.25
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: SAGR3 (Stewart and Gray Rd Route 3)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

24.29 1.00000 3.40 32.683754698.54396644.67

3.4032.873754699.82396402.18
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: SAGR4 (Stewart and Gray Rd Route 4)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

24.29 1.00000 3.40 32.893754699.94396401.88

3.4032.843754701.77396377.58

3.4032.733754721.36396225.55

3.4032.453754722.36396059.06
9/21/2023SO1 - 4 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: WDRR1 (Woodruff Ave Route 1)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

24.29 1.00000 3.40 32.703754721.20396784.52

3.4031.803754414.79396781.54
9/21/2023SO1 - 5 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Volume Sources Generated from Line Sources
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGDR1 L0000001 396402.62 3754710.84 32.81 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000002 396402.60 3754719.44 32.56 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000003 396402.58 3754728.04 32.74 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000004 396402.56 3754736.64 32.82 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000005 396402.54 3754745.24 32.83 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000006 396402.53 3754753.84 32.83 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000007 396402.51 3754762.44 32.84 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000008 396402.49 3754771.04 32.83 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000009 396402.47 3754779.64 32.86 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000010 396402.46 3754788.24 32.89 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000011 396402.44 3754796.84 32.91 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000012 396402.42 3754805.44 32.94 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000013 396402.40 3754814.04 32.96 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000014 396402.38 3754822.64 32.94 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000015 396402.37 3754831.24 32.96 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000016 396402.35 3754839.84 33.07 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000017 396402.33 3754848.44 33.12 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000018 396402.31 3754857.04 33.15 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGDR2 L0000029 396643.53 3754709.62 32.78 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000030 396643.52 3754718.22 32.80 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000031 396643.50 3754726.82 32.84 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000032 396643.48 3754735.42 32.94 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 9/21/2023SO1 - 6 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGDR2 L0000033 396643.46 3754744.02 33.04 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000034 396643.44 3754752.62 33.08 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000035 396643.42 3754761.22 33.07 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000036 396643.40 3754769.82 33.06 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000037 396643.38 3754778.42 33.08 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000038 396643.36 3754787.02 33.09 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000039 396643.34 3754795.62 33.09 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000040 396643.32 3754804.22 33.09 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000041 396643.30 3754812.82 33.09 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000042 396643.29 3754821.42 33.11 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000043 396643.27 3754830.02 33.13 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000044 396643.25 3754838.62 33.13 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000045 396643.23 3754847.22 33.12 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 L0000046 396643.21 3754855.82 33.13 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.05556 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALDR1 L0000047 396397.97 3755129.10 33.93 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000048 396397.99 3755120.50 34.05 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000049 396398.00 3755111.90 34.08 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000050 396398.01 3755103.30 34.09 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000051 396398.02 3755094.70 34.15 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000052 396398.03 3755086.10 34.09 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000053 396398.04 3755077.50 33.62 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000054 396398.05 3755068.90 33.47 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000055 396398.07 3755060.30 33.46 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 9/21/2023SO1 - 7 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALDR1 L0000056 396398.08 3755051.70 33.43 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000057 396398.09 3755043.10 33.38 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000058 396398.10 3755034.50 33.36 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000059 396398.11 3755025.90 33.36 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000060 396398.12 3755017.30 33.38 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000061 396398.13 3755008.70 33.36 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000062 396398.14 3755000.10 33.30 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000063 396398.16 3754991.50 33.25 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000064 396398.17 3754982.90 33.21 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000065 396398.18 3754974.30 33.18 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000066 396398.19 3754965.70 33.17 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000067 396398.20 3754957.10 33.19 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000068 396398.21 3754948.50 33.28 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000069 396398.22 3754939.90 33.26 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000070 396398.24 3754931.30 33.21 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000071 396398.25 3754922.70 33.26 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000072 396398.26 3754914.10 33.24 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000073 396398.27 3754905.50 33.23 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000074 396398.28 3754896.90 33.22 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000075 396398.29 3754888.30 33.20 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 L0000076 396398.30 3754879.70 33.17 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.03333 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALDR2 L0000077 396578.24 3755046.00 33.39 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000078 396575.40 3755037.89 33.30 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 9/21/2023SO1 - 8 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALDR2 L0000079 396572.56 3755029.77 33.28 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000080 396569.71 3755021.65 33.30 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000081 396564.05 3755017.53 33.33 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000082 396555.45 3755017.56 33.38 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000083 396546.85 3755017.60 33.23 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000084 396538.25 3755017.63 33.22 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000085 396529.65 3755017.67 33.13 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000086 396521.05 3755017.71 33.15 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000087 396512.45 3755017.74 33.11 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000088 396503.86 3755017.78 33.17 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000089 396495.26 3755017.81 33.22 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000090 396486.66 3755017.85 33.29 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 L0000091 396478.06 3755017.89 33.37 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.06667 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALDR3 L0000092 396700.34 3754965.81 33.32 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000093 396695.91 3754958.43 33.38 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000094 396691.44 3754951.26 33.36 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000095 396684.23 3754955.96 33.30 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000096 396677.03 3754960.65 33.18 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000097 396669.82 3754965.34 33.29 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000098 396662.62 3754970.04 33.37 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000099 396655.41 3754974.73 33.50 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000100 396648.21 3754979.43 33.34 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000101 396641.00 3754984.12 33.53 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 9/21/2023SO1 - 9 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALDR3 L0000102 396633.01 3754986.18 33.44 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000103 396626.46 3754984.13 33.32 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000104 396626.49 3754975.53 33.30 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000105 396626.52 3754966.93 33.25 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000106 396626.55 3754958.33 33.24 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000107 396626.58 3754949.73 33.27 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000108 396626.61 3754941.13 33.27 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000109 396626.64 3754932.53 33.22 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000110 396626.67 3754923.93 33.20 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000111 396626.70 3754915.33 33.21 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000112 396626.73 3754906.73 33.22 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000113 396626.76 3754898.13 33.21 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000114 396626.79 3754889.53 33.14 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000115 396626.82 3754880.93 33.10 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 L0000116 396626.85 3754872.33 33.11 3.40 8.60 4.00 3.160.04000 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALR1 L0000117 396714.12 3754963.23 33.22 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000118 396734.61 3754950.20 33.24 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000119 396755.11 3754937.16 33.27 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000120 396775.60 3754924.13 33.34 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000121 396785.10 3754931.42 33.94 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000122 396785.38 3754955.71 33.90 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000123 396785.67 3754980.00 33.37 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000124 396785.96 3755004.28 33.30 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 9/21/2023SO1 - 10 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALR1 L0000125 396786.25 3755028.57 33.41 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000126 396786.54 3755052.86 33.52 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000127 396786.83 3755077.14 33.61 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000128 396787.12 3755101.43 33.69 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000129 396787.41 3755125.71 33.77 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000130 396787.70 3755150.00 33.81 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000131 396791.26 3755168.43 33.96 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000132 396812.09 3755155.94 34.10 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000133 396832.92 3755143.45 34.08 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000134 396853.75 3755130.96 34.01 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000135 396874.58 3755118.47 34.01 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000136 396895.41 3755105.98 34.06 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000137 396916.24 3755093.49 34.11 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000138 396937.07 3755081.00 34.10 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000139 396957.90 3755068.51 34.11 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000140 396978.73 3755056.02 34.11 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000141 396999.56 3755043.53 34.10 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000142 397020.39 3755031.04 34.13 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 L0000143 397041.22 3755018.55 34.18 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.03704 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALR2 L0000144 396693.54 3754976.82 33.23 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.12500 L0000145 396678.28 3754986.72 33.28 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.12500 L0000146 396663.02 3754996.63 33.34 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.12500 L0000147 396647.76 3755006.54 33.35 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.12500 9/21/2023SO1 - 11 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALR2 L0000148 396632.50 3755016.44 33.33 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.12500 L0000149 396617.25 3755026.35 33.33 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.12500 L0000150 396601.99 3755036.26 33.35 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.12500 L0000151 396586.73 3755046.16 33.41 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.12500 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
HALR3 L0000152 396570.83 3755058.21 33.48 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 L0000153 396555.64 3755068.24 33.53 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 L0000154 396540.46 3755078.26 33.54 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 L0000155 396525.28 3755088.28 33.59 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 L0000156 396510.10 3755098.31 33.65 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 L0000157 396494.92 3755108.33 33.69 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 L0000158 396479.74 3755118.36 33.76 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 L0000159 396464.56 3755128.38 33.79 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 L0000160 396448.19 3755134.51 33.83 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 L0000161 396430.00 3755134.67 33.90 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 L0000162 396411.81 3755134.84 33.96 3.40 18.19 8.46 3.160.09091 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGR3 L0000169 396632.53 3754698.61 32.73 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.10000 L0000170 396608.24 3754698.73 32.75 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.10000 L0000171 396583.95 3754698.86 32.78 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.10000 L0000172 396559.66 3754698.99 32.82 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.10000 L0000173 396535.38 3754699.12 32.88 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.10000 9/21/2023SO1 - 12 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGR3 L0000174 396511.09 3754699.25 32.90 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.10000 L0000175 396486.80 3754699.37 32.91 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.10000 L0000176 396462.51 3754699.50 32.91 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.10000 L0000177 396438.23 3754699.63 32.92 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.10000 L0000178 396413.94 3754699.76 32.89 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.10000 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGR2 L0000179 396774.07 3754717.38 32.58 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.16667 L0000180 396751.24 3754709.11 32.61 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.16667 L0000181 396728.40 3754700.83 32.65 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.16667 L0000182 396704.22 3754700.48 32.66 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.16667 L0000183 396679.93 3754700.73 32.68 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.16667 L0000184 396655.64 3754700.98 32.72 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.16667 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGR1 L0000185 396796.86 3754724.51 32.62 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 L0000186 396819.60 3754733.04 32.59 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 L0000187 396842.34 3754741.57 32.65 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 L0000188 396865.08 3754750.10 32.72 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 L0000189 396887.82 3754758.63 32.81 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 L0000190 396910.56 3754767.17 32.89 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 L0000191 396933.30 3754775.70 33.02 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 L0000192 396956.04 3754784.23 33.27 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 L0000193 396978.78 3754792.76 33.86 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 9/21/2023SO1 - 13 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGR1 L0000194 397001.52 3754801.29 34.14 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 L0000195 397024.26 3754809.83 33.90 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 L0000196 397047.00 3754818.36 33.65 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.08333 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
WDRR1 L0000209 396784.40 3754709.06 32.65 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000210 396784.17 3754684.77 32.54 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000211 396783.93 3754660.48 32.45 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000212 396783.69 3754636.20 32.43 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000213 396783.46 3754611.91 32.36 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000214 396783.22 3754587.62 32.32 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000215 396782.98 3754563.34 32.23 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000216 396782.75 3754539.05 32.15 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000217 396782.51 3754514.76 32.08 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000218 396782.27 3754490.48 32.05 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000219 396782.04 3754466.19 32.01 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000220 396781.80 3754441.90 31.93 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 L0000221 396781.56 3754417.61 31.87 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07692 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGR4 L0000235 396389.77 3754700.85 32.86 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000236 396365.62 3754703.31 32.82 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000237 396341.53 3754706.42 32.82 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000238 396317.44 3754709.52 32.86 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 9/21/2023SO1 - 14 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SAGR4 L0000239 396293.35 3754712.62 32.77 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000240 396269.26 3754715.73 32.71 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000241 396245.17 3754718.83 32.75 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000242 396221.05 3754721.38 32.72 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000243 396196.76 3754721.53 32.68 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000244 396172.47 3754721.68 32.65 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000245 396148.18 3754721.82 32.61 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000246 396123.90 3754721.97 32.57 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000247 396099.61 3754722.11 32.53 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 L0000248 396075.32 3754722.26 32.48 3.40 24.29 11.30 3.160.07143 9/21/2023SO1 - 15 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Operation\Downey Prologis Disp Operation.isc Source Pathway
AERMOD
Option not in use
Building Downwash Information
Emission Rate Units for Output
For Concentration
Concentration Unit Label:

Emission Unit Label:

Unit Factor: 1E6

GRAMS/SEC
MICROGRAMS/M**3
Variable Emissions
SO2 - 1 9/21/2023AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Source Pathway
AERMOD
Hour / Day-of-Week Emission Rate Variation
Scenario: Scenario 3
CONSTSource ID:

Hour Sun SatFriThrWedTuesMon
1:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7:00 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00
8:00 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00
9:00 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00
10:00 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00
11:00 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00
12:00 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00
13:00 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00
14:00 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00
15:00 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00
16:00 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00
17:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
18:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
22:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SO2 - 3 9/21/2023AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
Receptor Networks
Note: Terrain Elavations and Flagpole Heights for Network Grids are in Page RE2 - 1 (If applicable) Generated Discrete Receptors for Multi-Tier (Risk) Grid and Receptor Locations for Fenceline Grid are in Page RE3 - 1 (If applicable) Uniform Cartesian Grid
Receptor
Network ID
Grid Origin
X Coordinate [m]
Grid Origin
Y Coordinate [m]
No. of X-Axis
Receptors
No. of Y-Axis
Receptors
Spacing for
X-Axis [m]
Spacing for
Y-Axis [m]
UCART1 396050.00 3754400.00 50.00 50.0027 27
Discrete Receptors
Discrete Cartesian Receptors
X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Record
Number
Group Name
(Optional)
396359.30 3754638.82 32.511
396998.06 3754826.96 33.562
396832.12 3754939.42 33.613
396806.31 3754968.92 33.664
396294.97 3755128.11 33.815
396292.44 3754939.64 33.386
396292.44 3754810.24 33.057
396290.91 3754727.55 32.798
396431.66 3754681.07 32.979
396647.40 3754685.12 32.5610
396727.12 3754740.07 32.8411
396726.22 3754914.82 33.2812
396370.99 3755104.47 34.1413
396369.64 3754929.71 33.6714
396365.59 3754753.61 33.2715
Plant Boundary Receptors
9/21/2023RE1 - 1 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
Cartesian Plant Boundary
Primary
X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Record
Number
Group Name
(Optional)
396381.56 3754716.43 32.811 FENCEPRI
396398.35 3754714.70 32.802 FENCEPRI
396710.06 3754714.70 32.743 FENCEPRI
396723.95 3754716.43 32.714 FENCEPRI
396723.95 3754945.92 33.245 FENCEPRI
396457.44 3755124.23 33.796 FENCEPRI
396448.82 3755125.89 33.827 FENCEPRI
396381.56 3755125.89 33.968 FENCEPRI
Intermediate
Record
Number X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Group Name
(Optional)
396417.83 3754714.70 32.551 FENCEINT
396437.31 3754714.70 32.612 FENCEINT
396456.80 3754714.70 32.633 FENCEINT
396476.28 3754714.70 32.664 FENCEINT
396495.76 3754714.70 32.745 FENCEINT
396515.24 3754714.70 32.816 FENCEINT
396534.72 3754714.70 32.787 FENCEINT
396554.21 3754714.70 32.888 FENCEINT
396573.69 3754714.70 32.859 FENCEINT
396593.17 3754714.70 32.7310 FENCEINT
396612.65 3754714.70 32.7711 FENCEINT
396632.13 3754714.70 32.7812 FENCEINT
396651.61 3754714.70 32.7913 FENCEINT
396671.10 3754714.70 32.7614 FENCEINT
396690.58 3754714.70 32.7615 FENCEINT
396723.95 3754735.55 32.8516 FENCEINT
396723.95 3754754.68 32.8817 FENCEINT
396723.95 3754773.80 32.9018 FENCEINT
396723.95 3754792.93 32.9419 FENCEINT
396723.95 3754812.05 33.0020 FENCEINT
396723.95 3754831.18 33.0321 FENCEINT
396723.95 3754850.30 33.0722 FENCEINT
396723.95 3754869.42 33.1523 FENCEINT
396723.95 3754888.55 33.2124 FENCEINT
396723.95 3754907.67 33.2525 FENCEINT
9/21/2023RE1 - 2 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
396723.95 3754926.80 33.3026 FENCEINT
396708.27 3754956.41 33.2727 FENCEINT
396692.60 3754966.90 33.2828 FENCEINT
396676.92 3754977.39 33.3029 FENCEINT
396661.24 3754987.88 33.3430 FENCEINT
396645.56 3754998.36 33.4131 FENCEINT
396629.89 3755008.85 33.4032 FENCEINT
396614.21 3755019.34 33.3133 FENCEINT
396598.53 3755029.83 33.2634 FENCEINT
396582.86 3755040.32 33.3035 FENCEINT
396567.18 3755050.81 33.4236 FENCEINT
396551.50 3755061.30 33.4737 FENCEINT
396535.83 3755071.79 33.4538 FENCEINT
396520.15 3755082.27 33.4639 FENCEINT
396504.47 3755092.76 33.5440 FENCEINT
396488.79 3755103.25 33.5941 FENCEINT
396473.12 3755113.74 33.7642 FENCEINT
396432.01 3755125.89 33.9043 FENCEINT
396415.19 3755125.89 33.9744 FENCEINT
396398.38 3755125.89 33.9745 FENCEINT
396381.56 3755106.39 33.9546 FENCEINT
396381.56 3755086.89 33.7647 FENCEINT
396381.56 3755067.40 33.6148 FENCEINT
396381.56 3755047.90 33.5549 FENCEINT
396381.56 3755028.40 33.4950 FENCEINT
396381.56 3755008.90 33.4251 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754989.40 33.4052 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754969.91 33.3453 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754950.41 33.2654 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754930.91 33.1955 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754911.41 33.1456 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754891.91 33.0457 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754872.41 32.9858 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754852.92 32.9559 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754833.42 32.8560 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754813.92 32.7961 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754794.42 32.7462 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754774.92 32.6363 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754755.43 32.5864 FENCEINT
396381.56 3754735.93 32.7365 FENCEINT
9/21/2023RE1 - 3 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
Receptor Groups
Group DescriptionGroup IDRecord
Number
FENCEPRI Cartesian plant boundary Primary Receptors1
FENCEINT Cartesian plant boundary Intermediate Receptors2 9/21/2023RE1 - 4 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Meteorology Pathway
AERMOD
Met Input Data
Surface Met Data
Profile Met Data
PICO_v9.SFC
Default AERMET format
Filename:

Format Type:

Filename:

Format Type:

PICO_v9.PFL
Potential Temperature Profile
Base Elevation above MSL (for Primary Met Tower):48.00 [m] Wind Direction
Rotation Adjustment [deg]:

Meteorological Station Data
Upper Air
On-Site
Station No. Year Station Name
Surface
Stations X Coordinate [m] Y Coordinate [m]
2010
2010
2010
Default AERMET format
Wind Speed
Wind Speeds are Vector Mean (Not Scalar Means)
Data Period
Start Date: End Date:1/1/2010 12/31/2016Start Hour: End Hour: 241 Data Period to Process

10.8 8.23

5.14 3.09

1.54 No Upper Bound
Wind Speed [m/s]Stability CategoryWind Speed [m/s]
F
E
D
C
B
A
Stability Category
Wind Speed Categories
ME - 1 9/21/2023AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc Output Pathway
AERMOD
Tabular Printed Outputs
Short Term
Averaging
Period

RECTABLE
Highest Values Table MAXTABLE
Maximum
Values Table

DAYTABLE
Daily
Values Table1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
No1
Contour Plot Files (PLOTFILE)
Path for PLOTFILES: DOWNEY PROLOGIS DISP CONSTRUCTION.AD Averaging
Period
Source
Group ID
High
Value File Name
1 ALL 1st 01H1GALL.PLT
Period ALL N/A PE00GALL.PLT
9/21/2023OU - 1 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software Project File: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\Downey Prologis Disp Construction\Downey Prologis Disp Construction.isc HARP Project Summary Report 9/21/2023 9:59:52AM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 22118
Project Name: DOWNEY PROLOGIS RISK CONST 1
Project Output Directory: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\DOWNEYPROLOGIS RISKCONST 1 HARP Database: NA
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:3
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrID StkID ProIDPolID PolAbbrevMulti Annual EmsMaxHr EmsMWAF (lbs/yr) (lbs/hr)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CONST 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 220.75590.251352 1 HALR1 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 30.932650.056022 1 SAGR1 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 25.910910.046927 1 Background
PolID PolAbbrev Conc (ug/m^3)MWAF
________________________________________________________________ Ground level concentration files (\glc\)
________________________________________
9901MAXHR.txt
9901PER.txt
HARP Project Summary Report 9/21/2023 10:02:57AM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 22118
Project Name: DOWNEY PROLOGIS CONST 2
Project Output Directory: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\DOWNEYPROLOGIS CONST 2 HARP Database: NA
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:3
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrID StkID ProIDPolID PolAbbrevMulti Annual EmsMaxHr EmsMWAF (lbs/yr) (lbs/hr)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CONST 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 151.49530.074547 1 HALR1 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 4.625530.024932 1 SAGR1 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 3.8980690.021018 1 Background
PolID PolAbbrev Conc (ug/m^3)MWAF
________________________________________________________________ Ground level concentration files (\glc\)
________________________________________
9901MAXHR.txt
9901PER.txt
HARP Project Summary Report 9/21/2023 9:54:32AM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 22118
Project Name: DOWNEY PROLOGIS RISK OPS
Project Output Directory: C:\Users\martinr\Desktop\HRA\DOWNEYPROLOGIS RISKOPS HARP Database: NA
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:18
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrID StkID ProIDPolID PolAbbrev Multi Annual Ems MaxHr Ems MWAF (lbs/yr) (lbs/hr)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ HALR1 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.161410997 4.69E-05 1 HALR2 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.023237508 6.76E-06 1 HALR3 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.016053831 4.67E-06 1 SAGR1 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.107914206 3.18E-05 1 SAGR2 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.066538171 1.96E-05 1 SAGR3 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.033269085 9.81E-06 1 SAGR4 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.013162321 3.88E-06 1 WDRR1 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.023433673 6.91E-06 1 HALDR1 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.038158832 1.08E-05 1 HALDR2 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.019291004 5.47E-06 1 HALDR3 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.028518194 8.09E-06 1 SAGDR1 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.057019364 1.62E-05 1 SAGDR2 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.065160645 1.85E-05 1 DOCK1 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.157599892 4.47E-05 1 DOCK2 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.157599892 4.47E-05 1 DOCK3 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.157599892 4.47E-05 1 DOCK4 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.157599892 4.47E-05 1 DOCK5 0 09901DieselExhPM 1 0.157599892 4.47E-05 1 Background
PolID PolAbbrev Conc (ug/m^3)MWAF
________________________________________________________________ Ground level concentration files (\glc\)
________________________________________
9901MAXHR.txt
9901PER.txt
***POLLUTANT HEALTH INFORMATION***
Health Database: C:\HARP2\Tables\HEALTH17320.mdb
Health Table Version: HEALTH23216
Official: True
PolID InhCancerPolAbbrev InhCancer InhChronicREL OralChronicRELInhChronic8HRREL ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9901 DieselExhPM 1.1 5
Appendix C
Cultural Resources Study
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road
Warehouse Project
Draft Cultural Resources Study
March 2023 | 04967.00001.001
Prepared for and submitted to:

City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Project Applicant:

Prologis, Inc.
2141 Rosecrans Avenue
Suite 1151
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942

National Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Trevor Gittelhough, M.A., RPA
Firm: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

Client/Project: City of Downey / Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project Report Date: March 2023
Report Title: Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project, City of Downey, Los Angeles County, California
Submitted to: City of Downey
Type of Study: Cultural Resources Survey
New Sites: None
Updated Sites: None
USGS Quad: Whittier 7.5' Quadrangle
Acreage: Approximately 29.16 acres
Key Words: Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project; Los Angeles County; Downey; Hall Road; Stewart and Gray Road; Woodruff Avenue; Santa Gertrudes (McFarland and Downey) Land Grant; negative archaeological survey

i
Table of Contents
Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 1

1.3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................... 2

1.3.2 State ....................................................................................................................... 2

1.3.3 Integrity .................................................................................................................. 3

1.3.4 Native American Heritage Values .......................................................................... 3

1.4 Project Personnel ................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 PROJECT SETTING ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Natural Setting .................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Prehistoric Period .................................................................................................. 4

2.2.2 Ethnohistory........................................................................................................... 6

2.2.3 Historical Background ............................................................................................ 8

3.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Archival Research and Contact Program .......................................................................... 11

4.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Records Search .................................................................................................................. 11

4.1.1 Previous Surveys .................................................................................................. 11

4.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources ........................................................................... 13

4.2 Built Environment Resource Directory ............................................................................. 14

4.3 Other Archival Research ................................................................................................... 14

4.4 Native American Contact Program ................................................................................... 15

5.0 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 15

5.1 Management Recommendations ..................................................................................... 15

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 17

ii
Table of Contents (cont.)

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Resumes of Key Personnel
B Records Search Results (Confidential, bound separately) C Native American Correspondence (Confidential, bound separately)

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Follows Page

1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 USGS Topography ............................................................................................................................ 2 3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................ 2

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page

1 Prehistoric Cultural Chronology ....................................................................................................... 5 2 Previous Studies within One Mile of the Project Area................................................................... 12 3 Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of the Project Area ........................................... 13

iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
AMSL above mean sea level

BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
BP Before Present

CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CRHR California Register of Historical Resources

HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OHP Office of Historic Preservation

PRC Public Resources Code
project Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project

SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center

TCP Traditional Cultural Properties
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

This page intentionally left blank
Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) was contracted by the City of Downey to provide cultural resources services for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (project) in the City of Downey, Los Angeles County, California. The project is a proposed redevelopment of the approximately 29-acre property to construct a concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics, and an ancillary truck workshop facility. A cultural resources study, including a records search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, and a review of historic aerial photographs and maps, was conducted for the project area. This report details the methods and results of the cultural resources study and has been prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The records search was requested from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on February 17, 2022 and received on March 11, 2022. It indicated that 18 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within one mile of the project area, none of which occurred within the project area itself. The records search results also indicated that a total of 10 cultural resources have been previously recorded within one mile of the project area, all of them historic in age; however, no sites have been recorded within the project area.

Due to the developed nature of the project site and complete lack of exposed ground surface, the investigations did not include an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area; however, archival research, including a review of historic aerials, topographic maps, parcel maps, plat maps, assessor data, and historic directories, was undertaken.

Based on the results of the current study, no archaeological resources will be affected by the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project; historic built environment resources are addressed in a separate study. However, the original ground surface could not be observed, as the property has been completed developed for decades. Additionally, the project area is located within alluvial soils, where there is a potential for buried cultural resources. Based on this, it is recommended that an archaeological and Native American monitoring program be implemented for ground-disturbing activities. The monitoring program would include attendance by the archaeologist and Native American monitor at a preconstruction meeting with the grading contractor and the presence of archaeological and Native American monitors during initial ground-disturbing activities on site. Both archaeological and Native American monitors would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground-disturbing activity in the event that cultural resources are encountered. If significant cultural material is encountered, the project archaeologist will coordinate with the Monitoring Tribes, the applicant, and City of Downey staff to develop and implement appropriate treatment measures to avoid or mitigate impacts.

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

ES-2

This page intentionally left blank

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Downey (City) contracted HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) to provide cultural resources services for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (project) in the City of Downey, Los Angeles County, California. The project is a proposed redevelopment of the approximately 29-acre property to construct a concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics, and an ancillary truck workshop facility. A cultural resources study, including a records search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, and a review of historic aerial photographs and maps, was conducted for the project area. This report details the methods and results of the cultural resources study and has been prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located in the City of Downey, in Los Angeles County, west of Interstate (I)-5 and I-605 and north of I-105 (Figure 1, Regional Location), at the northwest corner of the intersection of Stewart and Gray Road and Woodruff Avenue ( Figure 2, USGS Topography). The 29.16-acre project site consists of five parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 6284-019-013, 6284-019-014, 6284-019-015, 6284-019-017, and 6284-019-016), located at 9300, 9350, and 9400 Hall Road and 9301, 9333, and 9399 Stewart and Gray Road. The project is bordered by Hall Road to the north, commercial buildings to the east, Stewart and Gray Road to the south, and industrial buildings to the west (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph).

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing five buildings (totaling approximately 433,000 square feet) and the construction of an approximately 510,110-square foot industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses and a 25,000-square foot ancillary truck workshop facility, together totaling 535,110 square feet. The project would include 614 auto parking spaces, 215 trailer and/or container parking spaces, and 109 dock loading doors.

The new industrial building is intended to be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage. The facility will also include an office and mezzanine area.

On-site activities will include the following: general industrial/warehouse with refrigeration and cold storage components for the purposes of receiving, storing, shipping of food and/or beverage products, storage, distribution, and/or consolidation of manufactured goods, and last-mile fulfillment and delivery. The office space is intended to be used for office uses ancillary to the warehouse operations.

The 25,000-square foot truck workshop building would be ancillary to the warehouse/distribution/ logistics operation for purposes of maintaining a truck or van fleet, trailers, and associated equipment operating the facility.

1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, and/or scientific importance. Significant resources are those resources that have been found eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as applicable.

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

2 1.3.1 Federal
Federal regulations that would be applicable to the project if there is a federal nexus (e.g., permitting or funding from a federal agency) consist of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (16 United States Code 470 et seq., 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on “historic properties”, that is, properties (either historic or archaeological) that are eligible for the NRHP. To be eligible for the NRHP, a historic property must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:

A. associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or D. has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

1.3.2 State
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) 21084.1, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Section 15064.5, address determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historic resources and discuss significant cultural resources as “historical resources,” which are defined as:
• resource(s) listed or determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][1])
• resource(s) either listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or in a “local register of historical resources” or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant” (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][2]) • resources determined by the Lead Agency to meet the criteria for listing on the CRHR (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][3])
For listing in the CRHR, a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values;

^
?

TURA COUNTY
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!! ! !
!!
!
!
!! ! !! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!!!! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
! !
!!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! !!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!! ! ! !
!
!! ! !!!
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !!!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
San Gab riel M ou nt ain s
!
!
! ! !
!
!!!!! !
! ! !
!
S
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!! ! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! ! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
O
!
! !
R
! !
A
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
N
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
G
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
E CO
!
!
S
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
a
U
n t
N
a
TY
Ana
! !
! !
!
!
!
M
!
o
!
!
u
!
!
n t
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
a
!
i
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
n
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
s
!
!
!
!
! !
!$
Aå
AÝ
:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\CUL\Fig1_Regional.mxd 04967.00001.001 6/16/2023 - SAB San Fernando
Valley !"^$
!
Agoura
Hills
IÆ Am
Calabasas
!
!
!
Mal
Aí

BEVERLY
HILLS
Ô? %&l(
T
CA CU
SAN
MONI
A
?×ibu
!
!
C
LVER
ITY
!"`$

TORRANCE
LOS

ANGELES
E
%(&

COMPTON
?Æ
CARSON
!
d
Añ
ACTON
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project

VICTOVILLE
?å
!
?ß
Aå
!
ar
ta
ita
San
Cl
!
Añ

HESPERIA
?×
!"a$ Añ %&(g

BURBANK
I

HOLLYWOOD
Æ
?å

GLENDAL

PASADENA
?× %&(e SAN

GABRIEL
%
%&(o
&g( AZUZA ?øSAN BERNARDINO
ONTARIO ?¥
!"`$ WEST POMONACOVINA
!"`$ %&h(
!"`$
!
?¬ ??z
VERS
z
IDE

INGLEWOOD
DOWNEY
!"^$ WHITTIER
Project S

CHINO RI
ite LA
HABRA
!"a$
%&(q NORWA LK BUENA
PARK ?u
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY
AÆ?lvord
o%&( ?ÆANAHEIM
?Æ
!
CORONA Lake
Mathews
%&h(
VERDES
?Ô

PALOS LONG
BEACH
%&l(
!!

WESTMINSTER
?ì SANT
ANA
A
!"a$
PERRIS
%&l(

HUNTINGT
BEACH
ON
?s
%&l( !"^$
IRV
AÝ
I NE
Lee
Lake ?±
AÎ
E
LAKE Canyon
LSINORE Lake
I
0 10 Miles
K
NEWPOR
BEACH
T
Lake
Elsinore %&h( !"a$ ° Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) Regional Location
Figure 1
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
I:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\CUL\Fig2_USGS.mxd 04967.00001.001 6/16/2023 -DY

Project Site
Source: WHITTIER 7.5' Quad (USGS)0 2,000 Feet
K
USGS Topography
Figure 2
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
Project Site
:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\CUL\Fig3_Aerial.mxd 04967.00001.001 6/16/2023 -DY Pellet St
Firestone Blvd
Hall Rd
Elm Vista Dr
Coldbrook Ave
Woodruff Ave
Nance Ave
Cee Bee Dr
Stewart And Gray Rd

I
Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2020)300 Feet
K
Aerial Phot
Figure 3
ograph
0 Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

3 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(4), a resource may also be considered a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA at the discretion of the lead agency.

1.3.3 Integrity
All resources that are eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR must have integrity, which is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Resources, therefore, must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In an archaeological deposit, integrity is assessed with reference to the preservation of material constituents and their culturally and historically meaningful spatial relationships. A resource must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which it is proposed for nomination.

1.3.4 Native American Heritage Values
California State Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) revised PRC Section 21074 to include Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) as an area of CEQA environmental impact analysis. As a general concept, a TCR is similar to the federally defined termed Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP); however, it incorporates consideration of local and state significance and required mitigation under CEQA. According to Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F. King (1998), “Traditional” in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is derived from the role the property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices.

A TCR may be considered significant if it is (i) included in a local or state register of historical resources; (ii) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1; (iii) a geographically defined cultural landscape that meets one or more of these criteria; (iv) a historical resource described in PRC Section 21084.1 or a unique archaeological resource described in PRC Section 21083.2; or (v) a non-unique archaeological resource if it conforms with the above criteria.

1.4 PROJECT PERSONNEL
Kassie Sugimoto, M.A. served as principal investigator and cultural resources project manager for the cultural resources study. Trevor Gittelhough, M.A. RPA, served as the primary author of this report.

Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A., RPA, provided senior technical oversight. Mx. Gittelhough, Ms. Sugimoto, and Ms. Robbins-Wade all meet the professional qualifications of the Secretary of Interior’s Standard and Guidelines for Archaeology.

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

4 2.0 PROJECT SETTING

2.1 NATURAL SETTING
The project area is situated within the Los Angeles Basin, a broad, level plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Santa Monica Mountains and Puente Hills to the north, and the Santa Ana Mountains and San Joaquin Hills to the south. It is drained by several major watercourses, including the Los Angeles, Rio Hondo, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers. The project is located at an elevation of approximately 108 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).

The Los Angeles Basin developed as a result of tectonic forces and the San Andreas fault zone, with subsidence occurring 3 to 18 million years ago (mya) (Critelli et al. 1995). While sediments dating back to the Cretaceous (66 mya) are preserved in the Los Angeles Basin, continuous sedimentation began in the middle Miocene (around 13 mya) (Yerkes et al. 1965). Since that time, sediments have been eroded into the Los Angeles Basin from the surrounding highlands, resulting in thousands of feet of accumulation (Yerkes et al. 1965). Most of these sediments are marine, until the sea level dropped in the Pleistocene, and the deposition of the alluvial sediments that compose the uppermost units in the Los Angeles Basin began.

The surficial geology of the project site is comprised of younger alluvium, which consists of unconsolidated silt, sand, and gravel eroded from the mountains surrounding the Los Angeles Basin and deposited beginning in the Holocene (Yerkes 1960; Yerkes and Campbell 2005). Soils in the vicinity consist primarily of Hueneme, San Emigdio, and Pico series; Hueneme series sediments are comprised of greyish brown loamy fine sand and sandy loam with few rock fragments; San Emigdio series sediments consist of light brownish grey fine sandy loam; Pico series sediments are comprised of greyish brown sandy loam (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 1997, 1999, and 2003). All three soil series support grasslands and cultivated agriculture.

2.2 CULTURAL SETTING

2.2.1 Prehistoric Period
Proposed dates for the earliest human occupation in California vary from around 20,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Several researchers have argued for the presence of much earlier Pleistocene humans in California (Carter 1957, 1978, 1980; Minshall 1976); however, these sites identified as Pleistocene “early man” are all controversial. The material from the sites is generally considered non-artifactual, and the investigative methodology is often questioned (Moratto 1984). Several chronological sequences have been developed as aids to understanding cultural changes within southern Californian prehistory.

By focusing on data synthesis and building upon previous studies, Wallace (1955, 1978) developed a prehistoric chronology for the coastal region of southern California that continues to be used today, while also being applicable to near-coastal and inland areas. Wallace organized his sequence into four periods: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. While Wallace’s earlier sequence lacked chronological precision due to a paucity of absolute dates, the work of southern California researchers over the past four decades has provided thousands of radiocarbon dates that have alleviated that issue (Byrd and Raab 2007:217). Since his original sequence, there have been several revisions to Wallace’s (1955) synthesis using those radiocarbon dates as well as data provided by projectile point assemblages (e.g., Koerper and Drover 1983; Koerper et al. 2002; Mason and Peterson Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

5 1994). The regional prehistoric cultural chronology is summarized below in Table 1, Prehistoric Cultural Chronology (adapted from Wallace 1955, 1978).

Table 1

PREHISTORIC CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY
Period Key Characteristics Date Range
Early Prehistoric • Diverse mixture of hunting and gathering • Greater emphasis on hunting
Circa 10,000–8,600 BC
Milling Stone • Subsistence strategies centered on collecting plant foods and small animals
• Extended and loosely flexed burials
8,600–1,300 BC
Intermediate • Shift toward a hunting and maritime subsistence strategy, along with a wider use of plant foods
• Trend toward greater adaptation to regional or local
resources
• Fully flexed burials, placed face-down or face-up,
and oriented toward the north or west
1,300 BC–AD 500
Late Prehistoric • Increase in the use of plant food resources in addition to an increase in land and sea mammal
hunting
• Increase in the diversity and complexity of material
culture
• Increased usage of the bow and arrow
Increase in population size accompanied by the
advent of larger, more permanent villages
AD 500–Historic Contact

The best example of Early Prehistoric Period archaeological evidence in Southern California is in the San Dieguito complex of San Diego County, dating to over 10,000 years ago (Warren 1967; Warren et al. 2004). The San Dieguito Tradition is thought by most researchers to have an emphasis on big game hunting and coastal resources (Warren 1967). The material culture of the San Dieguito complex consists primarily of scrapers, scraper planes, choppers, large blades, and large projectile points. In some areas of California, the Early Prehistoric Period is often referred to as the Paleo-Indian period and is associated with the last Ice Age occurring during the Terminal Pleistocene (pre-10,000 years ago) and the Early Holocene, beginning circa 10,000 years ago (Erlandson 1994, 1997).

The Millingstone Horizon, or Archaic Period, dates from 7,000-8,600 to 1,300-3,000 years ago and is generally consistent with the Oak Grove complex of Santa Barbara, the Topanga complex of Los Angeles, and the La Jolla complex of San Diego (Warren et al. 2004). The Millingstone Horizon is also referred to as the Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968). The Encinitas tradition is generally “recognized by millingstone assemblages in shell middens, often near sloughs and lagoons” (Moratto 1984:147). According to Wallace, “a changeover from hunting to the collection of seed foods is clearly reflected in the archaeological record for the period between 6000 and 3000 B.C. The importance of seeds in the diet of the prehistoric peoples can be seen in the numbers of food-grinding implements present at their settlements” (Wallace 1978:28). Basin metates, manos, discoidals, a small number of Pinto series and Elko series points, and flexed burials are also characteristic. Most of the archaeological evidence for Archaic Period occupation in southern California is derived from sites located in near-coastal valleys, and around estuaries that are present along the San Diego coast (Warren et al. 2004). In Riverside County, the Archaic Period occupation is represented by diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon dates identified at Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

6 sites situated the within Perris and Domenigoni valleys (Bettinger 1974; Goldberg 2001; Robinson 2001).

Archaeological excavations conducted for the Perris Reservoir Project in Perris Valley yielded radiocarbon dates of circa 2,200 Before Present (BP) (Bettinger 1974), and several sites identified during archaeological studies conducted for the Eastside Reservoir (Diamond Valley Lake) Project dated to what the researchers termed the Middle Archaic (7,000 to 4,000 years ago) and Late Archaic (4,000 to 1,500 years ago) periods (Goldberg 2001).

Dates for the Intermediate Horizon vary by locale but can generally be dated to between 2,000 BC and AD 500 (Elsasser 1978). The Intermediate Horizon is consistent with the Hunting Culture of Santa Barbara County and is characterized by the presence of Pinto style points, named after the Pinto Basin in Riverside County, an increased use of the mortar and pestle, and the consumption of fleshier foods such as acorns, as opposed to small, hard seeds (Stickel 1978). This change resulted in the adoption of a more sedentary lifestyle, as seen in the presence of seasonal habitation sites (Van Horn 1980).

The Late Prehistoric period in southern California is characterized by the incursion of Uto-Aztecan- speaking people who occupied large portions of the Great Basin and an area stretching from southern Arizona and northwest and central Mexico into Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho (Miller 1986). The expansion of the Takic group into southern California is unrefined, but several scholars have hypothesized as to when and how the so-called “Uto-Aztecan wedge” occurred. Sutton (2009) argues that the Takic group expanded into southern California from the San Joaquin Valley about 3,500 years ago. Moratto (1984) also proposes that Takic expansion into the Southern Coast region correlates to the end of the Early Period (Late Archaic) circa 3,200 to 3,500 years ago, while Golla (2007) suggests an expansion of Uto- Aztecan speakers into southern California at approximately 2,000 years ago. While the exact chronology of Takic-speaking groups’ immigration to southern California remains uncertain, the beginning of the Late Prehistoric Period is marked by evidence of a number of new tool technologies and subsistence shifts in the archaeological record and is characterized by higher population densities and intensification of social, political, and technological systems. The changes include the production of pottery and the use of the bow and arrow for hunting instead of atlatl and dart, a reduction of shellfish gathering in some areas, an increase in the storage of foodstuffs such as acorns, and new traits such as the cremation of the dead (Gallegos 2002; McDonald and Eighmey 1998).

Native American population figures in the region substantially increased toward the end of the Late Prehistoric Period. After AD 1600, a change occurred in settlement and subsistence patterns, and land use intensified in the region, which was reflected into the ethnohistoric period (Bean et al. 1991; Goldberg 2001; Wilke 1974, 1978).

2.2.2 Ethnohistory

2.2.2.1 Gabrieleño
The project site is located within the region that has traditionally been occupied by the Gabrieleño people (also spelled as Gabrieleno or Gabrielino; Bean and Smith 1978:538; Kroeber 1925: Plate 57).

Other Indigenous groups in the surrounding areas include the Chumash to the north and northwest, the Tataviam/Alliklik to the north, the Serrano to the east, and the Luiseño and Juaneño to the south.

Interactions between these groups are well-documented, comprised primarily of trade and intermarriage.

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

7 The name Gabrieleño identifies the Indigenous people who were administered by the Spanish missionaries settled at Mission San Gabriel. This group is now considered to have a regional dialect of the Gabrielino language, along with the Santa Catalina Island and San Nicolas Island dialects (Bean and Smith 1978:538). In the post-European contact period, Mission San Gabriel included natives of the greater Los Angeles area, while also including members of surrounding Indigenous groups from other areas such as Kitanemuk, Serrano, and Cahuilla. There is little evidence that the people we call Gabrieleño had a broad term for their group (Dakin 1978:222); rather, they identified themselves as an inhabitant of a specific community with locational suffixes (e.g., a resident of Yaanga was called a Yabit, much the same way that a resident of New York is called a New Yorker; Johnston 1962:10).

Several native words have been suggested as labels for the broader group of Indigenous people from the Los Angeles region. These include Tongva (or Tong-v; Merriam 1955:7–86) and Kizh (Kij or Kichereno; Heizer 1968:105), though evidence indicated that these terms referred to local places or smaller groups of people within the larger group that we now call Gabrieleño. Nevertheless, many present-day descendants of these people have taken on Tongva as a preferred group name because it has a native rather than Spanish origin (King 1994:12). Thus, the term Gabrieleño /Tongva is used in the remainder of this report when discussing the Indigenous people of the Los Angeles Basin and their descendants.

The Gabrieleño/Tongva subsistence economy was centered on hunting and gathering. Due to the rich and varied nature of their environment, the Indigenous population exploited mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts, riparian, estuarine, and open and rocky coastal eco-niches. Acorns served as the staple food, supplemented by the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruits of a variety of flora (e.g., islay, cactus, yucca, sages, and agave). Freshwater and saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, reptiles, and insects, as well as both large and small mammals, were also hunted or collected and served as a large part of their diet (Bean and Smith 1978:546; Kroeber 1925:631–632; McCawley 1996:119–123, 128–131).

A wide variety of tools and implements were used by the Gabrieleño/Tongva to gather and collect food resources. These included the bow and arrow, traps, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons, and hooks for hunting and fishing. Those groups located near the ocean used oceangoing plank canoes, or ti’at, and tule balsa canoes for fishing, travel, and trade between the mainland and the Channel Islands (McCawley 1996:7). Gabrieleño/Tongva people processed their resources with a variety of tools, including hammerstones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Food was likewise consumed from a variety of vessels, with Catalina Island steatite used to make ollas and cooking vessels (Blackburn 1963; Kroeber 1925:629; McCawley 1996:129–138).

At the time of Spanish contact, the basis of Gabrieleño/Tongva religious life was the Chinigchinich cult, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. Chinigchinich gave instruction on laws and institutions, and also taught the people how to dance, the primary religious act for this society. He later withdrew into heaven, where he rewarded the faithful and punished those who disobeyed his laws (Kroeber 1925:637–638). The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was spreading south into the southern Takic groups even as Christian missions were being built, and may represent a mixture of native and Christian beliefs and practices (McCawley 1996:143-144).

The burial practices of the Gabrieleño/Tongva included both burials and cremations, with inhumation the more common practice on the Channel Islands and the adjacent mainland coastal areas, while cremation was the primary practice on the remainder of the coast and through the inland areas Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

8 (Harrington 1942; McCawley 1996:157). Remains were buried in distinct burial areas, sometimes associated with villages and sometimes with no clear village association (Altschul et al. 2007). Cremation ashes have been found in archaeological contexts buried within stone bowls and in shell dishes (Ashby and Winterbourne 1966:27), as well as scattered among broken ground stone implements (Cleland et al. 2007). Archaeological data corresponds with ethnographic descriptions of an elaborate mourning ceremony that occurred over several days and included a variety of offerings, such as seeds, stone grinding tools, animal skins, baskets, wood tools, shell beads, bone and shell ornaments, and projectile points and knives. Offerings varied, both with the sex of the deceased individual and their status (Dakin 1978:234–365; Johnston 1962:52–54; McCawley 1996:155–165).

2.2.3 Historical Background
The post-contact history of California has been generally divided into three distinct periods, defined primarily by political and socioeconomic control of the region; the Spanish period (1769–1822), the Mexican period (1822–1848), and the American period (1848–present). While explorers from Spain, Russia, and Britain visited California for brief periods of time between 1529 and 1769, it was the establishment of the mission system, beginning with Mission San Diego de Alcalá, which served as the starting point of the Spanish period. Independence from Spain, marked by the signing of the Treaty of Córdoba 1822 and recognition by Isabella II in 1836, is the beginning of the Mexican period, while the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 and the end of the Mexican-American War, signals the beginning of the American period, with California becoming a United States Territory.

2.2.3.1 Spanish Period
Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of Southern California between the mid- 1500s and mid-1700s. Juan Rodríguez Cabríllo was the first, stopping in 1542 at present-day San Diego Bay. Cabríllo and his crew explored the shorelines of present Catalina Island as well as San Pedro and Santa Monica bays. After Cabrillo, the Spanish naval officer Sebastián Vizcaíno recorded most of the present California and Oregon coastline in the following half-century. Vizcaíno’s crew also landed on Santa Catalina Island and at San Pedro and Santa Monica Bays, which is the origin of each of their names. It was based on these explorations by Cabrillo and Vizcaíno that the Spanish crown laid claim to California (Bancroft 1886:96–99; Gumprecht 2001:35).

It took more than 200 years before Spain began the colonization and inland exploration of Alta California. This was marked by the 1769 overland expedition of Captain Gaspar de Portolá, marking the beginning of California’s Historic period, which occurred immediately after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas.

With a band of 64 soldiers, missionaries, Baja (lower) California Native Americans, and Mexican civilians, Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego, a fortified military outpost, as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California. In July 1769, while Portolá was exploring Southern California, Franciscan Fr. Junípero Serra founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá at Presidio Hill, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823.

The Portolá expedition reached the present-day boundaries of Los Angeles in August of 1769, marking the first entrance of Europeans to the area. Father Juan Crespí, a member of the expedition, named the campsite by the river Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de la Porciúncula or “Our Lady the Queen of the Angeles of the Porciúncula.” Two years later, Fr. Junípero Serra established another Catholic mission, Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, on September 8, 1771 (Engelhardt 1927). Only a decade later, Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

9 a group of Mexican families traveled from Mission San Gabriel Arcángel to establish a new pueblo called El Pueblo de la Reyna de Los Angeles (“the Pueblo of the Queen of the Angels”).

2.2.3.2 Mexican Period
The primary emphasis of the Spanish period in California was the construction of missions and their associated presidios in the attempt to integrate the Native American population into Catholicism and communal enterprise. While the crown provided incentives to bring settlers to pueblos or towns, only three pueblos were established during the Spanish period, of which only two were successful and remained as California cities (San José and Los Angeles). Growth within Alta California was kept to a minimum due to several factors, such as the threat of invasion, political dissatisfaction, and unrest among the indigenous population. After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion, New Spain (Mexico and the California territory) won independence from Spain in 1821. The following year the Mexican legislative body in California ended the isolationist policies established by the crown in order to keep Spain’s monopoly on trade, and opened California ports to foreign merchants.

Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. Rancho Los Nietos had been granted to Manuel Nieto by Governor Pedro Fages in 1784, during the Spanish Period. Originally containing 43,119 acres, Rancho Los Nietos was the first and largest grant deeded by the King of Spain during this period, containing present-day Anaheim, Artesia, Bellflower, Buena Park, Cerritos, Cypress, Downey, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Lakewood, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Naples, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, and Whittier (Clay and Troesken 2005). In 1833, Nieto’s heirs petitioned for Rancho Los Nietos to be partitioned into six separate ranchos. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and the establishment of many additional ranchos throughout California.

During the primacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners focused almost exclusively on the cattle industry, devoting large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The number of non-native inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had none of the immunities to these diseases.

2.2.3.3 American Period
With the Battle of Chino in 1846, war between Mexico and the United States began, starting as a clash between resident Californios and Americans in the San Bernardino area. This battle, was a defeat for the Americans, bolstering the Californios’ resolve against American rule and emboldening them to continue the offensive in later battles at Dominguez Field and in San Gabriel (Beattie 1942). Americans, however, were ultimately the victors of this two-year war. The Mexican-American War officially ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California, bringing California into its American period.

California officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as U.S. Territories (Waugh 2003). Horticulture and livestock would Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

10 continue to dominate the California economy due to the ranchos’ supremacy and dependence on cattle through the 1850s. The Gold Rush began in 1848, and with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides but also as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from southern to northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom. Cattle were at first driven along major trails or roads such as the Gila Trail or Southern Overland Trail but were then transported by trains as the railroads began to expand through the state. The cattle boom ended for southern California as neighboring states and territories drove herds to northern California at reduced prices. Operation of the huge ranchos became increasingly difficult, and droughts severely reduced their productivity (Cleland 2005:102–103).

The settlement called El Pueblo de la Reyna de Los Angeles (the Pueblo of the Queen of the Angels) was established in 1781 by 11 Mexican families traveling from Mission San Gabriel. It consisted of a small group of adobe-brick houses and streets and would eventually be known as the Ciudad de Los Angeles (City of Angels), which became incorporated on April 4, 1850, only two years after the Mexican– American War and five months prior to California’s achieving statehood. The County of Los Angeles had been previously established on February 18, 1850, as one of the 27 counties established in the months prior to California’s acquiring official statehood in the United States. After the United States took possession of California, many of the Mexican ranchos in Los Angeles county stayed intact, as stipulated by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; however, a severe drought in the 1860s, as well as expensive fees in proving ownership, resulted in many of the ranchos’ being sold or otherwise acquired by Americans. The majority of these were then subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns (Dumke 1944). By 1876, Los Angeles County reportedly had a population of 30,000 (Dumke 1944).

2.2.3.4 Project Vicinity
The project site is located with the large boundaries of what was originally Rancho Los Nietos; however, the ranch was split into six ranchos in 1834, per the petition of Nieto’s heirs to Mexican governor José Figueroa: Rancho Los Alamitos, Rancho Las Bolsas, Rancho Los Cerritos, Rancho Los Coyotes, Rancho Palo Alto, and Rancho Santa Gertrudes. The project site is within what became Rancho Santa Gertrudes, granted to Josefa Cota and sold to Lemuel Carpenter in 1843 (Hoffman 1862). A patent was filled by Lemuel Carpenter in 1852, as required by the Land Act of 1851, but he died in 1859. Due to Carpenter’s debt at his death, the rancho was sold to John Downey and James McFarland at a sheriff’s auction, and the grant was patented to McFarland and Downey in 1870 (Willey 1886). A smaller portion of the rancho was previously filed by Thomas Sanchez Colima in 1852 and was patented to him in 1877 (Willey 1886).

Two settlements were established in the mid-nineteenth century along the Rio Honda River, College Settlement and Gallatin, with Gallatin located where Paramount Boulevard and Florence Avenue cross.

In 1873, Downey subdivided 96 acres of the Rancho Santa Gertrudes land he purchased with McFarland and established the city of Downey. In 1883, businessmen of those three settlements were able to convince the Southern Pacific Railroad to route through Downey. The arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad sparked a boom in development, though it stayed primarily agricultural in nature into the twentieth century. This eventually united the three settlements into a larger settlement of Downey, with the rail depot serving as the center of town. The agricultural focus was citrus, harkening back to John Downey’s importation of several orange varieties, but grain, corn, and castor beans were also grown.

After World War II, Downey began to shift from its rural origins to a suburban city of industry with a focus on aviation. Factories from Vultee Aircraft had been constructed in the city during World War II, and manufacturing continued after its purchase by North American Aviation, then Rockwell International, and finally Boeing. Before being purchased by Boeing, Rockwell International was a Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

11 subcontractor of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and its Downey factory was involved with the development of the Apollo and space shuttle programs. The City was incorporated in 1956, which was followed by the institution of a charter government in 1964.

A historic study was conducted for the project to evaluate the significance of built environment resources. The historic study, which includes the development history of the project site and surrounding area, was submitted to the City and is available separately from this cultural resources report.

3.0 METHODS

3.1 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND CONTACT PROGRAM
HELIX requested a records search of the project site and a one-mile radius from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at the University of California, Fullerton, on February 17, 2022. The records search, received on March 11, 2022, covered a one-mile radius around the project area and included the identification of previously recorded cultural resources and the locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies. A review of the California Historical Resources and the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) historic properties directories, and Local Register, was also conducted.

The records search maps are included as Appendix B (confidential, bound separately) to this report.

Historic maps and aerial photographs were reviewed as well.

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on February 17, 2022, for a Sacred Lands File search and list of Native American contacts, which were received on April 11, 2022. Letters were sent on April 14, 2022 to the contacts listed by the NAHC. Native American correspondence is included as Appendix C (confidential, bound separately) to this report.

Due to the developed nature of the project site and the total lack of exposed ground surface, a field survey was not undertaken.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 RECORDS SEARCH
The record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) received from SCCIC in March 2022 covered a one-mile radius around the project area and included the identification of previously recorded cultural resources and information regarding previous cultural resources studies.

The records search summary and map are included as Appendix B (Confidential Appendices, bound separately).

4.1.1 Previous Surveys
The records search results identified 18 previous cultural resource studies within the record search limits, none of which occurred within the project site (Table 2, Previous Studies within One Mile of the Project Area).

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

12 Table 2

PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA
Report
Number (LA-) Year Author Report Title
00078 1975 Rosen, Martin D. Evaluation of the Archaeological Resources and Potential Impact of the Proposed Construction of Route 105
Freeway From El Segundo to Norwalk
03356 1982 Romani, John F. Archaeological Survey Report for the Route I-5 Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Route 405 in Orange County to
Route 605 in Los Angeles County P.M. 21.30/44.38

0.00/6.85
03865 1997 Mason, Roger D. Cultural Resources Records Search and Literature Review Report for a Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Telecommunications Facility: La 005-21, in the City of
Downey, CA
04082 1982 Romani, John F. Archaeological Survey Report for the I-5 Transitway 04819 1999 Duke, Curt Cultural Resource Assessment for Pacific Bell Mobile Services Facility La 660-04, County of Los Angeles, CA
04834 1999 Ashkar, Shahira Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Proposed Fiber Optic Cable System
Installation Project, Los Angeles to Anaheim, Los Angeles and Orange Counties
04880 2000 Smith, Philomene,
and Adam Sriro
Pavement Rehabilitation Along Route 605 Within the Cities of Long Beach, Lakewood, Cerritos, Downey, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, Whittier, City of Industry, Baldwin Park, and Irwindale
06227 2002 Kaplan, Mark,
Audrey Rutkove,
and Chris Johnson
NASA Industrial Plant Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) CA-310, Buildings CA-310-A Through
CA-310-H Through Q
07735 2004 Billat, Lorna Puerto Rico/CA-8236c, 10601 Firestone Blvd, Norwalk, CA, Los Angeles County
07934 2006 Pollock, Katherine
H.

Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment of the
Proposed Peaker Project Location at Center Substation
08255 2006 Arrington, Cindy,
and Nancy Sikes
Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project State of
California: Volumes I and II
08892 2006 Bonner, Wayne Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Royal Street Communications, LLC Telecommunications
Facility Candidate LA0282A (Norwalk-SCE MO-T2), 10601
Firestone Boulevard, Norwalk, Los Angeles County, CA
10188 2002 Horne, Melinda C. Construction of a pipeline located adjacent to the frontage road between Garfield Avenue and Paramount Avenue,
and the City's Water Plant Yard located on Stewart and
Gray Road between Bellflower Boulevard and Woodruff
Avenue in the City of Downey
10285 2009 Bonner, Wayne H. Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for Verizon Wireless Candidate Downey Relo, Downey
Norwalk Road, Norwalk, Los Angeles County, CA
10382 2009 Bonner, Wayne,
and Kathleen A.

Crawford
Direct APE Historic Architectural Assessment for T-Mobile USA Candidate LA33719D (M&M Cut-O-Matic), 9316
Washburn Rd., Downey, Los Angeles County, CA
Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

13 Report
Number (LA-) Year Author Report Title
10525 2003 Strauss, Monica,
and Angel Tomes
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Proposed Lakewood Boulevard Street Improvement Project, City of Downey,
County of Los Angeles, CA
10633 2010 McKenna, Jeanette
A.

A Class III Archaeological Survey Report for the Industrial Property Located at 12214 Lakewood Blvd. in the City of Downey, Los Angeles County, CA
12452 2013 Bonner, Wayne,
Sarah Williams, ,
and Kathleen
Crawford
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate LA02994B (LA2994 Downey
YMCA) 11531 Downey Avenue, Downey, Los Angeles
County, CA

4.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources
The SCCIC has a record of ten previously recorded cultural resources within a one-mile radius of the project, but none have been recorded within the project area (Table 3, Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of the Project Area). All the resources recorded within the one-mile search radius are of historic age and consist of historic structures and buildings and one historic refuse deposit.

Table 3

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA Primary Number
(P-19-#)
Trinomial
(CA-LAN-#) Age Description Recorder, Date
004777 -- Historic Refuse scatter Bizzell, 2016
186110 -- Historic Union Pacific Railroad and
Hobart Tower
Ashkar, 1999;
Livingstone and
Hamilton, 2002;
Smith and Harper, 2007;
Feldman, 2018;
Kachour, 2019
186947 -- Historic Historic single-family home
at 12406 Lakewood Blvd
Tomes, 2003
186949 -- Historic Historic single-family home
at 12419 Lakewood Blvd
Tomes, 2003
186950 -- Historic Historic single-family home
at 12423 Lakewood Blvd
Tomes, 2003
186951 -- Historic Historic single-family home
at 12427 Lakewood Blvd
Tomes, 2003
188509 -- Historic T-Mobil LA33719D tower Crawford, 2009 188775 -- Historic Consolidated Vultee Aircraft
Corporation building
McKenna et al., 2010
190639 -- Historic The Downey YMCA building Crawford, 2013 192830 -- Historic Shree Pashupatinath
Foundation building
Lattig, 2018

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

14 4.2 BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCE DIRECTORY
HELIX also reviewed the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), which contains information on historic-era built environment resources that have been documented in the OHP inventory of non- archaeological resources. The OHP inventory only contains information on resources that have been processed by the office itself, such as those reviewed for eligibility to the NRHP, CRHR, and the California Historic Landmarks programs. This review identified over 100 historic structures within one mile of the project area, none of which were located within the project area, and the vast majority of which are located more than 0.5 mile from the project area.

4.3 OTHER ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Various additional archival sources were also consulted, including historic topographic maps, aerial imagery, parcel history data, and city directories. These include historic aerials from 1932, 1952, 1953, 1963, and 1972 (UCSB 2022; NETR Online 2022) and several historic USGS topographic maps, including the 1896 and 1902 Downey (1:62,500), the 1923 and 1936 Bell (1:24,000), 1943 Downey (1:62,500), and the 1951 Whittier (1:24,000), as well as the 1965 and 1972 Whittier (1:24,000) topographic maps. Other maps reviewed include the Los Angeles Land Use Maps (Huntington 2022). The purpose of this research was to identify historic structures and land use in the area, as well as the history of development and past disturbances.

The 1896 Downey quadrangle (1:62,500) shows two buildings within the project area, along with two additional buildings that may overlap with the project area’s western boundary. These structures are also noted on the 1902 Downey quadrangle (1:62,500). The 1923 Bell quadrangle (1:24,000) shows one building that may overlap in the northwestern corner of the project area, as well as a drainage that runs northeast/southwest through the project area. This drainage is also noted in the 1936 Bell quadrangle (1:24,000), and, in addition to the structure in the northwest, the map also shows the structure in the northeast that is recorded in the 1896 and 1902 Downey quadrangles. The 1943 Downey quadrangle (1:62,500) represents the project area as agriculture and has both structures still present. The 1951 Whittier quadrangle (1:24,000) shows the growth of the area with numerous buildings surrounding the project site, but only two structures, previously noted, are present within the project area itself. The 1965 Whittier quadrangle (1:24,000) further shows the development of the area, with the entire city developed and all but four of the structures currently within the project area noted on the map. By the 1972 Whittier quadrangle (1:24,000), all the structures currently in the project area are recorded.

A review of the Los Angeles Land Use Maps, created by the Los Angeles City Regional Planning Commission, was also undertaken. The 1937 Los Angeles Land Use Map denoted the entire project area as agricultural and showed a home in the northeast portion of the project area. This continues to be true for the 1949 and 1950 maps, though the 1950 Land Use Map has the addition of an old barn being noted near the home in the northeast portion of the project area.

Investigations into the parcel history of the project area identified that the extant buildings were constructed between 1951 and 1979, as per the Los Angeles County Assessor’s office public portal. A review of city directories between 1951 and 1968 identified the structures at the address as belonging to Aerojet General Corporation, beginning in 1959, while a review of Parcel Map No. 15573, created in 1983, denoted several easements belonging to the Aerojet General Corporation along the boundaries of the project area.

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

15 4.4 NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACT PROGRAM
HELIX contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on February 17, 2022, for a Sacred Lands File search and a list of Native American contacts for the project area. The NAHC indicated in a response dated April 11, 2022, that no known sacred lands or Native American cultural resources are within the project area, but that the area may be sensitive for cultural resources. The NAHC recommended contacting the representatives of eight Native American groups and provided appropriate contact information. Letters were sent on April 14, 2022, to Native American representatives and interested parties identified by the NAHC. As of the time of completion of this report, no responses have been received. If any responses are received, they will be forwarded to City staff.

5.0 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS
A study was undertaken to identify cultural resources that are present in the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse project area and to determine the effects of the project on historical resources. The cultural resources survey did not identify any cultural resources within the project area; therefore, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated.

The entire project area has been disturbed by nineteenth and twentieth-century agricultural activities, irrigation systems, road construction, transportation (railway) and utility (transmission and gas line) installation, and manufacturing uses; the entire project site is currently developed and has been since the 1950s. Two buildings were identified in the archival research as being present in the project area between 1896 and 1951, both likely associated with the agricultural use of the project area. These were demolished and replaced with the extant buildings, beginning in the early 1950s, with the first structures constructed in 1951 and the latest circa 1967. These facilities were used first by Rheem Manufacturing and then by Aero Jet General Corporation beginning as early as 1959.

5.1 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The project area is completely developed with no exposed ground surface; thus, the natural ground surface could not be examined for the presence of archaeological resources. The project site is located within younger alluvial sediments, where there is a potential for buried cultural resources. Furthermore, considering the extended presence of parking lots and limited change in the project area since 1952, it is possible that there are cultural resources associated with the small structure identified in the archival research as having been in the northwest corner present under the asphalt. There is also the possibility of similar resources present in the northeast corner, but the large construction in that area of the project area has likely destroyed or heavily impacted any possible resources there.

Due to this potential for buried resources, it is recommended that an archaeological and Native American monitoring program be implemented. The monitoring program would include attendance by the archaeologist and Native American monitor at a pre-construction meeting with the grading contractor and the presence of archaeological and Native American monitors during initial ground- disturbing activities on site. Both archaeological and Native American monitors would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground-disturbing activity in the event that cultural resources are encountered. If significant cultural material is encountered, the project archaeologist will Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

16 coordinate with the Monitoring Tribe, the applicant, and City of Downey staff to develop and implement appropriate avoidance, treatment, or mitigation measures.

In the event that human remains are discovered, the County Coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. All requirements of Health & Safety Code §7050.5 and PRC §5097.98 shall be followed.

Should the project limits change to incorporate new areas of proposed disturbance, an archaeological survey of these areas will be required.

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

17 6.0 REFERENCES
Altschul, Jeffrey H., John G. Douglass, Richard Ciolek-Torrello, Sarah Van Galder, Benjamin R. Vargas, Kathleen L. Hull, Donn R. Grenda, Jeffrey Homburg, Manuel Palacios-Fest, Steven Shelley, Angela Keller, and David Maxwell
2007 Life at the Nexus of the Wetlands and Coastal Prairie, West Los Angeles. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 20:34–42.

Ashby, G.E., and J.W. Winterbourne
1966 A Study of Primitive Man in Orange County and Some of Its Coastal Areas. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 2(1):5–52.

Bancroft, Hubert
1885 History of California, Volume 1, 1542-1800. The History Company Publishers, San Francisco.
1886 History of California, Volume III: 1825-1840. A.L. Bancroft & Co., San Francisco Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538–549. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Beattie, George
1942 The Battle of Chino. Historical Society of Southern California. 24(4): 143-160.

Blackburn, Thomas
1963 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. Annual Report, Archaeological Survey. University of California, Los Angeles.

Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215–228. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Clay, Karen, and Werner Troesken
2005 Ranchos and the Politics of Land Claims. In Land of Sunshine: An Environmental History of Metropolitan Los Angeles, ed. William Deverell and Greg Hise. University of Pittsburgh Press. Pittsburgh, PA.

Cleland, Robert Glass
2005 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-80. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

Cleland, James H., Andrew L. York, and Lorraine M. Willey 2007 Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered. EDAW Cultural Publications No. 3. EDAW, Inc., San Diego, California.

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

18 Critelli, Salvatore, Peter E. Rumelhart, and Raymond V. Ingersoll 1995 Petrofacies and Provenance of the Puente Formation (middle to upper Miocene), Los Angeles Basin, Southern California; Implications for Rapid Uplift and Accumulation Rates. The Journal of Sedimentary Research. 65(4a): 656-667.

Dakin, Susanna Bryant
1978 A Scotch Paisano in Old Los Angeles: Hugo Reid’s Life in California, 1832-1852 Derived from His Correspondence. Originally published 1939. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, United Kingdom.

Dumke, Glenn
1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library Publications, San Marino, California.

Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1927a San Gabriel Mission and the Beginning of Los Angeles. Mission San Gabriel, San Gabriel, California.
1927b San Fernando Rey, the Mission of the Valley. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Goldberg, Susan K.
2001 Land Use, Mobility, and Intensification Evaluation and Refinement of the Model. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastside Reservoir Project, Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Volume IV: Prehistoric Archaeology Synthesis of Findings, edited by Susan K. Goldberg, Chapter 14. Report prepared by Applied Earthworks, Hemet, California for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Gumprecht, Blake
2001 The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Harrington, John P.
1942 Culture Element Distributions: XIX Central California Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 7(1):1–46.

Heizer, Robert F.
1968 Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 74.

Hoffman, Ogden
1862 Reports of Land Cases Determined in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Numa Hubert, San Francisco.

Huntington Digital Library
2022 The Huntington Digital Library, Map Collection. https://cdm16003.contentdm.oclc.org/.

Accessed February 16, 2022.

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

19 Johnston, Bernice E.
1962 California’s Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8, Southwest Museum, Los Angeles, California.

King, Chester D.
1994 Native American Placenames in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Agoura Hills. Topanga Anthropological Consultants, California.

Koerper, Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34.

Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson 2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity, Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 63–81. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 6. Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Reprinted 1976 by Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Mason, Roger D., and Mark L. Peterson
1994 Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems–Analysis and Discussion, Vol. 1, part 1 of 2. Prepared by the Keith Companies. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki-Ballena Press, Banning, California.

Merriam, Clinton Hart
1955 Studies of California Indians. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Moratto, M.J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
1997 Hueneme Series. United States Department of Agriculture. Available at:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HUENEME.html#:~:text=The%20Huene me%20soils%20have%20grayish,mottled%2C%20and%20containing%20segregated%20 gypsum.
1999 San Emigdio Series. United States Department of Agriculture. Available at:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/S/SAN_EMIGDIO.html#:~:text=The%20Sa n%20Emigdio%20series%20consists,is%20about%2062%20degrees%20F.

Draft Cultural Resources Study for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | March 2023

20 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; cont.) 2003 Pico Series. United States Department of Agriculture. Available at:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/P/PICO.html#:~:text=The%20Pico%20seri es%20consists%20of,is%20about%2060%20degrees%20F.

NETR Online
2022 Historic Aerials. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer . Accessed February 2022.

University of California, Santa Barbara
2022 UC Santa Barbara Library. Aerial Photography Collection. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Accessed February 16, 2022.

Waugh, John
2003 On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How it Changed the Course of American History. The American Crisis Series. Books on the Civil War Era No. 13.

Scholarly Resources Inc, Delaware.

Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by Robert F.

Heizer, pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Willey, H.I.
1886 Report of the Surveyor-General of the State of California From August 1, 1884, to August 1, 1886. Sacramento.

Yerkes, Robert
1960 Geologic map of the Whittier and La Habra quadrangles, the western Puente Hills, Los Angeles basin, California. U.S. Geological Survey
Yerkes, Robert, and Russel Campbell
2005 Preliminary Geological Map of the Los Angeles 30’ × 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California. U.S. Geological Survey
Yerkes, Robert, T.H. McCulloh, J.E. Schoellhamer, and J.G. Vedder 1965 Geology of the Los Angeles Basin – an introduction. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A.

Appendix A
Resumes of Key Personnel

Page | 1

TREVOR GITTELHOUGH, RPA
Cultural Resources Assistant Project Manager
Mx. Gittelhough is an archaeologist and assistant project manager with 11 years of experience. They specialize in underwater cultural resources, with experience in archaeology, cultural resources management, site monitoring, surveys and excavations, laboratory sorting, cataloging and analysis, and conservation. They have conducted environmental,
paleontological, and cultural resources work throughout California in support of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for public and private sector clients. Mx. Gittelhough has experience in team management in the terrestrial and underwater archaeological management sectors, with expertise in implementing mitigation and monitoring projects, report production, and coordination with Indigenous groups. Their technical skills include terrestrial and submerged archaeological survey, excavation, and site testing. They have authored numerous site records and technical reports detailing the results of cultural resources work, as well as academic articles. They have also had thorough training in artifact analysis and specializes in lithic analysis and maritime conservation. Mx. Gittelhough meets the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards in History and Archaeology.

Enchanted Hills Park Project. Cultural Resource Specialist for a 22.5-acre neighborhood park project in the City of Perris, Riverside County. Provided cultural resource monitoring during initial site work and prepared monitoring letter report.

Work performed for the City of Perris.

Dam Maintenance Program. Cultural Resource Specialist for the City of San Diego Dam Maintenance Program in San Diego County. Assisted in preparing an archaeological and historic resources assessment in compliance with state and federal regulations.

Scope included a cultural resource records search, review of historic maps and aerials, and preparation of a technical report. Work performed for the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department.

Bouquet Canyon Road Project. Cultural Resource Specialist for a private residential development project in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County. Monitored all ground-disturbing activities associated with geotechnical studies, such as drilling and trenching. Provided monitoring during ground-penetrating radar studies of portions of the project area. Produced monitoring report. Work performed for Integral Communities.

Lake Morena Oak Shores/Lake Morena Views Mutual Water Company Consolidation.

Cultural Resource Specialist for a cultural resources study in support of a proposed water district consolidation project in eastern San Diego County. Assisted with the preparation of a cultural resources technical report in compliance with state and federal regulations and State Water Resources Control Board. Scope included a cultural

EDUCATION
Master of Arts,
Underwater
Archaeology, East
Carolina University, 2018
Bachelor of Arts,
Anthropology, University
of California, Santa
Barbara, 2011

REGISTRATIONS/

CERTIFICATIONS
Registered Professional
Archaeologist No. 17387
American Academy of
Underwater Sciences,
Scientific Diver
Professional Association
of Diving Instructors,
Certified Diver
No. 0110385008
Geographic Information
Systems Professional
(GISP) Certification,
HAZWOPER 40-Hour
Certification

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society of American
Archaeology
Society of Historical
Archaeology
Society of California
Archaeology (Advisory
Council of Underwater
Archaeology)
Divers Alert Network

Page | 2

resource records search, review of historic maps and aerials, and assistance with the preparation of a technical report. Work performed for Lake Morena Oak Shores Mutual Water Company and Lake Morena Views Mutual Water Company as a subconsultant to NV5.

Shady View Residential Project Environmental Impact Report. Cultural Resource Specialist for a housing development project in the City of Chino Hills in San Bernardino County. The project involves the development of 159 single-family homes, open space and recreational amenities, and associated street, utility/infrastructure, and drainage improvements. Assisted in the preparation of the technical report in compliance with state and federal regulations. Project scope included a cultural resource records search, review of historic maps and aerials, field survey, and preparation of a technical report. Work performed for the City of Chino Hills.

California Crossings. Cultural Resource Specialist for a 29-acre industrial development in Otay Mesa, San Diego County. Conducted a cultural resources study in support of biological mitigation measures (burrowing owl habitat creation). Prepared an archaeological resources assessment in compliance with state and federal regulations. Scope included a cultural resources records search, review of historic maps and aerials, and preparation of a technical report. Work performed for Sudberry Development, Inc. with County of San Diego as the lead agency.

Oceanside Mission Basin Groundwater Purification Facility Well Expansion and Brine Minimization Design.

Cultural Resource Specialist for a proposed groundwater wells and brine minimization project to improve water production at an existing groundwater purification facility in the City of Oceanside, San Diego County. Assisted with the preparation of the cultural resources technical report in compliance with state and federal regulations.

Project scope included a cultural resources records search, tribal outreach, field survey, monitoring of geotechnical borings, preparation of a constraints memo, and preparation of a technical report. Work performed for the City of Oceanside Water Utilities Department as a subconsultant to GHD, Inc. 611 Island Ave Residential Tower. Cultural Resource Specialist for a residential tower project in the downtown area of the City of San Diego. The project plans include incorporating the existing historic façade into the new 32-story building. Assisted with the preparation of an archaeological and historic resources assessment in compliance with CEQA. Scope included a cultural resource records search, review of historic maps and aerials, and preparation of a technical report with a sensitivity assessment. Work performed for Cresleigh Homes.

EMWD Quail Valley III Regional Water Tank Environmental Consulting. Cultural Resource Specialist for a new water tank and associated piping and facilities in Riverside County. Prepared the technical report to summarize a records search, Native American outreach, archaeological survey, and research into the historic land uses of the project lands. Work performed for Pulte Group, with Eastern Municipal Water District as the CEQA lead agency.

Cactus II Feeder Pipeline Biological and Cultural Construction Monitoring. Cultural Resource Specialist for construction monitoring of the installation of a sewer line and associated facilities. Work performed for Eastern Municipal Water District.

Pasadena Water & Power Sunset Reservoir Replacement Historical Resources Evaluation. Cultural Resource Specialist for a reservoir replacement project in the City of Pasadena. Prepared a cultural resources technical analysis to support an EIR and provided support to the City of Pasadena for tribal consultation. Work performed as a subconsultant to Kennedy Jenks, with the City of Pasadena as the lead agency under CEQA.

Athletic Facility Borings Cultural Resources Monitoring. Cultural Resource Specialist for a cultural resource monitoring program in support of the proposed project on the Palomar College San Marcos Campus, San Diego County. Provided monitoring of ground disturbing activities in compliance with CEQA, resulting in the completion of a cultural resources monitoring letter report.

Page | 3

Arrow 32N Residential. Senior Cultural Resource Specialist for a cultural resources study in support of the proposed Project in the City of Upland, San Bernardino County. Co-authored an archaeological technical report and assisted with a historic resources assessment report in compliance with Section 106 and CEQA. Scope included a cultural resources records search, review of historic maps and aerials, preparation of a technical report and evaluation of historic resources for inclusion to the NRHP and CRHR.

Garland Battery Energy Storage System. Senior Cultural Resource Specialist for a cultural resources study in support of the proposed Project in the County of Los Angeles. Prepared an archaeological resources assessment and provided monitoring for all ground disturbing activities a in compliance with CEQA. Scope included a cultural resources records search, review of historic maps and aerials, pedestrian survey, preparation of a technical report, monitoring, and the preparation of a monitoring report.

Appendix D
Historic Resources Evaluation Report
Prepared for and submitted to:

City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Project Applicant:

Prologis, Inc.
2141 Rosecrans Avenue
Suite 1151
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road
Warehouse Project
Historic Resources Evaluation Report
February 2023 | 04967.00001.001

This page intentionally left blank

National Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Marina Khrustaleva, M.A.; Trevor Gittelhough, M.A. RPA; James Turner, M.A. RPA
Firm: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

Client/Project: City of Downey / Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project Report Date: February 2023
Report Title: Historic Resources Evaluation Report for Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project, Downey, Los Angeles County, California Submitted to: City of Downey, Community Development Department, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, CA 90241
Type of Study: Historic Resources Evaluation Report
New Sites: Rheem Manufacturing Corporation/Aerojet General Corporation Buildings One-Four
Updated Sites: None
USGS Quad: Whittier 7.5’ Quadrangle
Acreage: Approximately 31.35 acres
Key Words: Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project; Los Angeles County; Downey; Township 3 South, Range 12 West; Hall Road; Stewart and Gray Road; Woodruff Avenue; Santa Gertrudes (McFarland and Downey) Land Grant; Rheem Manufacturing Corporation; Aerojet General Corporation; historic evaluation; no significant resources

This page intentionally left blank

i
Table of Contents
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 2

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1.1 National Register of Historic Places ....................................................................... 2

2.1.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation ....................................... 3

2.2 State .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources ............................................................ 5

2.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................... 5

2.3 Local .................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.1 City of Downey General Plan ................................................................................. 6

2.3.2 City of Downey Municipal Code ............................................................................. 8

3.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Records Search .................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Built Environment Resource Directory ............................................................................... 8

3.3 Field Survey ......................................................................................................................... 8

3.4 Archival Research ................................................................................................................ 9

3.5 Project Personnel ................................................................................................................ 9

4.0 HISTORIC SETTING AND CONTEXT ................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Mexican Ranchos and Early American Period .................................................................. 10

4.2 Early Urban Development of Downey .............................................................................. 11

4.3 Aerospace Industry in Downey ......................................................................................... 12

5.0 HISTORY OF THE PROJECT SITE ...................................................................................................... 13

5.1 Rheem Manufacturing Company ...................................................................................... 15

5.2 Alben Randolf Froberg ...................................................................................................... 20

5.3 Aerojet General Corporation ............................................................................................ 22

6.0 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 26

6.1 Overview of Subject properties ........................................................................................ 26

6.2 Building One ...................................................................................................................... 26

6.3 Building Two ..................................................................................................................... 28

6.4 Building Three ................................................................................................................... 30

6.5 Building Four ..................................................................................................................... 31

ii
Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page

7.0 EV
ALUATION .................................................................................................................................. 32

7.1 Significance Criteria A/1 .................................................................................................... 32

7.2 Significance Criteria B/2 .................................................................................................... 32

7.3 Significance Criteria C/3 .................................................................................................... 33

7.4 Significance Criteria D/4 ................................................................................................... 33

8.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 34

9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 35 A
B
C

LIST OF APPENDICES
Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms
Resumes of Key Personnel
Building Permits
LI

ST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Re
gional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 USGS Topography ............................................................................................................................ 2 3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................ 2

iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AIA American Institute of Architects
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number

BERD Built Environment Resource Directory

CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System City City of Downey
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources

DPR Department of Parks and Recreation

HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

HRER Historic Resources Evaluation Report

JATO Jet-Assisted Takeoff

NETR Nationwide Environmental Title Research
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NPS National Park Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OAC Online Archives of California
OHP Office of Historic Preservation

PCAD Pacific Coast Architecture Database
PRC Public Resources Code
project Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project

SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center

UCSB University of California Santa Barbara
USGS U.S. Geological Survey

This page intentionally left blank
Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The City of Downey (City; lead agency) retained HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) to provide historic resources consulting services in support of the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (project) in the City of Downey, Los Angeles County, California. Located in the City, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Stewart and Gray Road and Woodruff Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 6284-019-013, 6284-019-014, 6284-019-015, 6284-019-016, and 6284-019-017), the extant buildings located at 9300, 9350, and 9400 Hall Road and 9301, 9333 (or 9363), and 9399 (9401) Stewart and Gray Road are used as manufacturing and warehouse facilities by multiple tenants (furniture assembly, paper recycling, etc.)
The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing four buildings (totaling approximately 433,000 square feet) and the construction of an approximately 535,110-square-foot industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses. All four buildings are older than 50 years old and require evaluation for historical significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5).

The purpose of this report is to provide the substantial evidence necessary to determine whether any of the of-age components of the extant buildings, in whole or in part, meet federal, state, or local eligibility criteria as a historic landmark, and therefore qualify as a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. This intensive-level historic resource evaluation report (HRER) assesses the subject properties in accordance with the criteria of the NRHP and the CRHR. This evaluation includes an analysis of the historic integrity of the buildings, the establishment of a period of significance, and the recordation of the resource on the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms. This report does not include a project-specific impacts analysis, mitigation measures, or alternatives analysis.

All activities were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and CEQA, as well as applicable best practices and regulations. The City of Downey is the lead agency under CEQA.

DATES OF INVESTIGATION
HELIX staff requested a record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on February 17, 2022. On June 10, 2022, HELIX Senior Architectural Historian Marina Khrustaleva, M.A., and HELIX Archaeologist James Turner, M.A., conducted an intensive-level pedestrian survey and inspection of the subject buildings. Ms.

Khrustaleva meets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history, as codified in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61. Field notes included resource descriptions, current conditions, alterations/integrity, and character-defining features. On August 3 and August 24, 2022, Ms. Khrustaleva conducted archival research at the City of Downey Planning Department, the Downey Historical Society, and the Downey City Library. She evaluated the historical significance of the buildings based on in-depth historical background research and by applying the NRHP/CRHR eligibility criteria. All evaluation results were documented in this report; the compiled DPR set follows this report in Appendix A, and key staff resumes follow as Appendix B.

Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

ES-2

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Historical background research demonstrates that industrial buildings at 9300, 9350, and 9400 Hall Road and 9301, 9333 (9363), and 9399 (9401) Stewart and Gray Road are not associated with any significant historic events or person(s). The buildings were not designed by master architects, nor are they exemplary embodiments of an architectural style. All four buildings were found not historically significant and, therefore, not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR. Therefore, the buildings at 9300, 9350, and 9400 Hall Road and 9301, 9333 (9363), and 9399 (9401) Stewart and Gray Road are not considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.

A copy of this report and DPR 523 forms documenting the subject buildings will be placed on file at the SCCIC for inclusion in the CHRIS. The DPR forms are attached as Appendix A.

Based on the results of the current study, no historic properties will be affected by the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project.

Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Downey (City; lead agency) retained HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) to provide historic resources consulting services in support of the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (project) in the City of Downey, Los Angeles County, California. Located in the City, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Stewart and Gray Road and Woodruff Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 6284-019-013, 6284-019-014, 6284-019-015, 6284-019-016, and 6284-019-017), the extant buildings were operated as industrial and warehouse facilities from 1951 to the present. The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing four buildings (totaling approximately 433,000 square feet) and the construction of an industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses and an ancillary truck workshop facility.

The purpose of this report is to provide the substantial evidence necessary to determine whether any of the of-age components of the extant buildings, in whole or in part, meet federal, state, or local eligibility criteria as a historic landmark and therefore qualify as a historical resource pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This intensive-level historic resource evaluation report (HRER) assesses the subject properties in accordance with the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). This evaluation includes an analysis of the historic integrity of the buildings, the establishment of a period of significance, and the recordation of the resource on the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms (Appendix A). This report does not include a project-specific impacts analysis, mitigation measures, or alternatives analysis.

All activities were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and California Environmental Quality Act, as well as applicable best practices and regulations. The City of Downey is the lead agency under CEQA.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the City of Downey, in Los Angeles County (Figure 1, Regional Location), at the northwest corner of the intersection of Stewart and Gray Road and Woodruff Avenue (Figure 2, USGS Topography, and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The site is bordered by Hall Road to the north, commercial buildings to the east, Stewart and Gray Road to the south, and industrial buildings to the west. The 29.165-acre project site consists of five parcels (APNs 6284-019-013, 6284-019-014, 6284-019- 015, 6284-019-016, and 6284-019-017) and includes four buildings:
- Building A (9400 (9350) Hall Road and 9399 (9401) Stewart and Gray Road); - Building B (9300 Hall Road and 9301 Stewart and Gray Road); - Building C (9350 (9400) Hall Road);
- Building D (9333 (9363) Stewart and Gray Road).

The numbering of the buildings and their parts is inconsistent between the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Portal and the postal addresses used by current tenants.

Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

2 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing four buildings (totaling approximately 433,000 square feet) and the construction of an approximately 535,110-square-foot industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses.

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section describes the applicable regulatory framework considered in this study.

2.1 FEDERAL

2.1.1 National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places was established by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (CFR 36 CFR 60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it:

Criterion A Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
Criterion B Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or Criterion C Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
Criterion D Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting these criteria, a property must retain historic integrity, which is defined in National Register Bulletin 15 as the “ability of a property to convey its significance” (National Park Service 1990). In order to assess integrity, the National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity.

To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, which are defined in the following manner in National Register Bulletin 15:

^
?

TURA COUNTY
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!! ! !
!!
!
!
!! ! !! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!!!! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
! !
!!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! !!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!! ! ! !
!
!! ! !!!
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !!!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
San Gab riel M ou nt ain s
!
!
! ! !
!
!!!!! !
! ! !
!
S
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!! ! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! ! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
O
!
! !
R
! !
A
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
N
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
G
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
E CO
!
!
S
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
a
U
n t
N
a
TY
Ana
! !
! !
!
!
!
M
!
o
!
!
u
!
!
n t
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
a
!
i
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
n
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
s
!
!
!
!
! !
!$
Aå
AÝ
:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\CUL\Fig1_Regional.mxd 04967.00001.001 6/16/2023 - SAB San Fernando
Valley !"^$
!
Agoura
Hills
IÆ Am
Calabasas
!
!
!
Mal
Aí

BEVERLY
HILLS
Ô? %&l(
T
CA CU
SAN
MONI
A
?×ibu
!
!
C
LVER
ITY
!"`$

TORRANCE
LOS

ANGELES
E
%(&

COMPTON
?Æ
CARSON
!
d
Añ
ACTON
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project

VICTOVILLE
?å
!
?ß
Aå
!
ar
ta
ita
San
Cl
!
Añ

HESPERIA
?×
!"a$ Añ %&(g

BURBANK
I

HOLLYWOOD
Æ
?å

GLENDAL

PASADENA
?× %&(e SAN

GABRIEL
%
%&(o
&g( AZUZA ?øSAN BERNARDINO
ONTARIO ?¥
!"`$ WEST POMONACOVINA
!"`$ %&h(
!"`$
!
?¬ ??z
VERS
z
IDE

INGLEWOOD
DOWNEY
!"^$ WHITTIER
Project S

CHINO RI
ite LA
HABRA
!"a$
%&(q NORWA LK BUENA
PARK ?u
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY
AÆ?lvord
o%&( ?ÆANAHEIM
?Æ
!
CORONA Lake
Mathews
%&h(
VERDES
?Ô

PALOS LONG
BEACH
%&l(
!!

WESTMINSTER
?ì SANT
ANA
A
!"a$
PERRIS
%&l(

I
Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2020)300 Feet
K
Aerial Phot
Figure 3
ograph
0 Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

3 1. Location. The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

2. Design. The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

3. Setting. The physical environment of a historic property.

4. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

5. Workmanship. The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

6. Feeling. A property’s expression of the aesthetic or the historic sense of a particular period of time.

7. Association. The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Some aspects of integrity may be accorded more weight than others, depending on the type of resource being evaluated and the applicable eligibility criteria. Integrity can be assessed only after it has been concluded that a resource is significant.

2.1.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation In accordance with the National Park Service and CEQA Guidelines, projects that comply with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Secretary’s Standards) are projects that retain the historic integrity of the resource.

According to CEQA Guidelines, a project that complies with the Secretary’s Standards is generally considered to be a project that will not cause a significant adverse impact to a historical resource.

The goal of the Secretary’s Standards is to outline treatment approaches that allow for the retention of and/or sensitive changes to the distinctive materials and features that lend a historical resource its significance. The Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines offer general recommendations for preserving, maintaining, repairing, and replacing historical materials and features, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. These standards also provide guidance on new construction adjacent to historic districts and properties, in order to ensure that there are no indirect adverse impacts to historic properties.

Rehabilitation is the most flexible treatment approach of the Secretary’s Standards. The ten Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation are:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or the alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

4 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires the replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.

Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

The Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines offer general recommendations for preserving, maintaining, repairing, and replacing historical materials and features, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. The Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation also provide guidance on new construction adjacent to historic districts and properties in order to ensure that there are no adverse indirect impacts to integrity as a result of a change in setting. Applying the Secretary’s Standards to new construction adjacent to historic resources helps ensure the avoidance of indirect impacts and the retention of the setting and feeling of the historic resource and its surrounding environment.

Secretary’s Standards compliance begins with the identification and documentation of the “character- defining,” or historically significant, features of the historical resource. According to Preservation Brief 17, Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character, there is a three-step process to identifying character-defining features (Nelson, 1982). Step 1 involves assessing the physical aspects of the building exterior as a whole, including its setting, shape and massing, orientation, roof and roof features, projections, and openings.

Step 2 looks at the building more closely—at materials, trim, secondary features, and craftsmanship.

Step 3 encompasses the interior, including individual spaces, relations or sequences of spaces (floor plan), surface finishes and materials, exposed structure, and interior features and details. Alterations Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

5 and replacement of character-defining features over time can impair a historic property’s integrity and result in a loss of historic status. Therefore, to ensure that a historic property remains eligible after the implementation of projects, character-defining features should be identified and preserved.

2.2 STATE
The policies of the NHPA are implemented at the state level by the California Office of Historic Preservation, a division of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The Office of Historic Preservation is also tasked with carrying out the duties described in the PRC and maintaining the California Historic Resources Inventory and CRHR. The state-level regulatory framework also includes CEQA, which requires the identification and mitigation of substantial adverse impacts that may affect the significance of eligible historical and archaeological resources.

2.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing on the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included on the CRHR.

According to PRC Section 5024.1(c), a resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:

Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Properties that do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP listing can still qualify for listing in the CRHR.

Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance.

2.2.2 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze whether historic and/or archaeological resources may be adversely impacted by a proposed project. Under CEQA, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.1). Answering this question is a two-part process: first, the determination must be made as to whether the proposed project involves cultural resources. Second, if Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

6 cultural resources are present, the proposed project must be analyzed for a potential “substantial adverse change in the significance” of the resource.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, historic resources are:

1. A resource listed in, or formally determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq);

2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or identified as significant in a historic resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g);

3. Any building, structure, object, site, or district that the lead agency determines eligible for national, state, or local landmark listing; generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant (and therefore a historic resource under CEQA) if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register (as defined in PRC Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).

Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity (as defined in the previous section) does not meet NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR.

According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource (PRC Section 5024.1). Pursuant to CEQA, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b).

CEQA Guidelines specify that “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5). Material impairment occurs when a project alters in an adverse manner or demolishes “those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion” or eligibility for inclusion in the NRHR, CRHR, or local register. In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, the “direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short- term and long-term effects.”

2.3 LOCAL

2.3.1 City of Downey General Plan
The City of Downey adopted the General Plan (Vision 2025) on January 25, 2005. It states that “cultural amenities, including those of a historical, architectural, and archaeological nature, greatly enrich a community’s quality of life by displaying a strong positive and distinct image, linking the past to the present, and boosting civic pride” (City of Downey, 2005: 8-12). The Goals and Policies include three policies related to City’s cultural resources:

Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

7 • Goal 8.4. Enhance Downey’s cultural resources.
o Policy 8.4.1. Identify the city’s cultural resources. - Program 8.4.1.1. Conduct a survey to identify historic and architecturally significant structures, locations, and archeological resources.
- Program 8.4.1.2. Seek listing for appropriate properties on the National Register of Historic Places and the California State Register of Historic Resources. - Program 8.4.1.3. List significant historic resources in a Downey Register of Historic Places.
- Program 8.4.1.4. Establish a Council-appointed commission to address cultural resources issues, such as public art, historical preservation, and architectural resources.
- Program 8.4.1.5. Promote public information through the local schools, churches, and other organizations, which explains the benefits of historic preservation and enhancement of cultural resources.
- Program 8.4.1.6. Recognize Downey’s historic significance as a premier locale for post-World War II and 1950s-style architecture.
- Program 8.4.1.7. Support and recognize individuals and groups, such as the Downey History Center, which work to preserve Downey’s historic resources. o Policy 8.4.2. Preserve the city’s cultural resources. - Program 8.4.2.1. Adopt a historic preservation ordinance that would require a permit to demolish or modify a historic resource.
- Program 8.4.2.2. Provide incentives for property owners for historic preservation and resource protection and continue to add more incentives as opportunities arise. - Program 8.4.2.3. Promote the preservation and restoration of older structures. - Program 8.4.2.4. Encourage adaptive reuse of older structures. - Program 8.4.2.5. Reuse existing historic architectural elements in new construction when the preservation of historic resources is not feasible. - Program 8.4.2.6. Discourage the relocation of historic resources, or if necessary, relocate the historic resource within Downey.
- Program 8.4.2.7. Preserve and/or relocate significant archeological resources. o Policy 8.4.3. Enhance the city’s existing cultural resources. - Program 8.4.3.1. Develop an ordinance to fund and/or require public art as part of new development.
- Program 8.4.3.2. Support and encourage community events, such as the Downey Street Faire, Holiday Lane Parade, and ARC Walk.
- Program 8.4.3.3. Support and encourage groups, such as the Downey Museum of Art, Downey Civic Light Opera, Downey Symphonic Society, Downey Historical Society, and Downey Rose Float Association.

Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

8 - Program 8.4.3.4. Encourage cultural uses to be more centrally located - preferably in the downtown area.
- Program 8.4.3.5. Develop a museum/learning center as part of the Downey Landing development.

The General Plan recognized six landmarks as significant historical resources: the Rives Home (1911), Casa de Parley Johnson (1926), McDonald’s Restaurant (1953), the Dismuke’s House (1887), Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center (Harriman Building, 1932), and the Historical Arch located along the bend of Civic Center Drive.

2.3.2 City of Downey Municipal Code
The City of Downey Municipal Code does not include a Historic Preservation Ordinance. The City of Downey currently does not have a Historic Resources Inventory, a Historic Context Statement, or a Citywide Historic Resources Survey.

3.0 METHODS

3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
HELIX requested a record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on February 17, 2022. The records search covered a one-mile radius around the proposed project area and included the identification of previously recorded cultural resources (archaeological and historical resources), the locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies, and a review of the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Resources Inventory. No previously documented historic resources within the project area were on file with the SCCIC. The properties present within the project area are not included in the California Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) / State Historic Resources Inventory, nor are they included on a register or inventory of designated or eligible landmarks in the City of Downey. For a detailed summary of the records search results for the project, please refer to the separate cultural resources report produced by HELIX for this project (Gittelhough and Robbins-Wade 2023:11-14).

3.2 BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCE DIRECTORY
HELIX also reviewed the BERD, which contains information on historic-era built environment resources that have been documented in the OHP inventory of non-archaeological resources. The OHP inventory only contains information on resources that have been processed by the office itself, such as those reviewed for eligibility to the NRHP, CRHR, and the California Historic Landmarks programs. This review identified over 100 historic structures within one mile of the project area, none of which were located within the project area, and the vast majority of which are located more than 0.5 mile from the project area.

3.3 FIELD SURVEY
HELIX Senior Architectural Historian Marina Khrustaleva, M.A., and HELIX Archaeologist James Turner, M.A., conducted an intensive-level pedestrian survey and inspection of the project site on June 10, 2022. Ms. Khrustaleva meets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Historic Resources Evaluation Report for the
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | February 2023

9 Standards for architectural history, as codified in 36 CFR Part 61. Field investigation consisted of an examination and the photography of the exterior and interior of four historic buildings within the project site. Field notes included resource descriptions, current conditions, alterations, character- defining features, and integrity analysis.

3.4 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Research conducted by HELIX for this study included a variety of primary and secondary sources. HELIX consulted a number of online sources for this study, including the Los Angeles Public Library, the Huntington Digital Library, USC Digital Library, Los Angeles County Assessor’s Portal, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Historical Topographic Map Explorer, Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR), University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) Aerial Photo Collection, David Rumsey Map Collection, Online Archive of California, California State Library, Calisphere.com, American Institute of Architects (AIA) Historical Directory of American Architects, Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD), Ancestry.com, Newspapers.com, California Digital Newspaper Collection, Google Books, and city directories.

Downey City CouncilJune 11, 2024

Downey City Council
June 11, 2024